George Henry Spiker, Jr. v. Chadwick Dotson

E.D. Virginia

George Henry Spiker, Jr. v. Chadwick Dotson

DecidedJanuary 5, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-00851

StatusUnknown

This text of George Henry Spiker, Jr. v. Chadwick Dotson (George Henry Spiker, Jr. v. Chadwick Dotson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George Henry Spiker, Jr. v. Chadwick Dotson, (E.D. Va. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division GEORGE HENRY SPIKER, JR., Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:25CV851 CHADWICK DOTSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner is a Virginia inmate. The Court received a Motion for Modification of Sentence from Petitioner. Given the content of this document, the Court deemed it appropriate to give Petitioner the opportunity to pursue this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rivenbark v. Virginia, 305 F. App’x 144, 145 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on October 22, 2025, the Court sent Petitioner the form for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. (ECF No. 2.) The Court informed Petitioner if he wished to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he must complete the § 2254 Petition form and return the same to the Court within twenty (20) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to return to the § 2254 Petition form or take other appropriate action within twenty (20) days of the date of entry thereof would result in the dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). On November 7, 2025, Petitioner responded, but did not to fill out the § 2254 Petition and indicated that he could not take action to move the case forward. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). No law or evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. The Court will DENY Petitioner a certificate of appealability. An appropriate Final Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: | | 5 | M02 lo tt<— Richmond, Virginia Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division GEORGE HENRY SPIKER, JR., Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:25CV851 CHADWICK DOTSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner is a Virginia inmate. The Court received a Motion for Modification of Sentence from Petitioner. Given the content of this document, the Court deemed it appropriate to give Petitioner the opportunity to pursue this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rivenbark v. Virginia, 305 F. App’x 144, 145 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on October 22, 2025, the Court sent Petitioner the form for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. (ECF No. 2.) The Court informed Petitioner if he wished to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he must complete the § 2254 Petition form and return the same to the Court within twenty (20) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to return to the § 2254 Petition form or take other appropriate action within twenty (20) days of the date of entry thereof would result in the dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). On November 7, 2025, Petitioner responded, but did not to fill out the § 2254 Petition and indicated that he could not take action to move the case forward. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). No law or evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. The Court will DENY Petitioner a certificate of appealability. An appropriate Final Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: | | 5 | M02 lo tt<— Richmond, Virginia Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

George Henry Spiker, Jr. v. Chadwick Dotson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-henry-spiker-jr-v-chadwick-dotson-vaed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack