Summary
This Final Order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia resolves a pro se petitioner's objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The Court overruled the objections, granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, and denied the petition with prejudice, concluding that the state court's rejection of the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims was reasonable under the AEDPA's deferential standard. The Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and informed the petitioner of the process to request one from the Fourth Circuit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Mills properly objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
- Whether the district court should grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss the habeas petition under AEDPA.
- Whether Mills is entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- Mills’ objections were not properly directed to the magistrate’s findings of reasonableness and are therefore overruled.
- The motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice.
- The certificate of appealability is denied.
Key quotations
“The standards created by Strickland and §2254(d) are both highly deferential, and when the two apply in tandem, review is doubly so. The Strickland standard is a general one, so the range of reasonable applications is substantial.” (at 122-23)
“Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” therefore, the Court declines to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.” (at 335-38)
Factual background
Cortez Antonio Mills, a Virginia inmate, was convicted of first‑degree murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and use of a firearm in the commission of a murder. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
Procedural history
Mills filed a 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition pro se. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who issued a report and recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal. Mills objected to the R&R. The district court reviewed the objections de novo and adopted the magistrate’s findings.