Butts v. Clarke, No. 2:2011cv00420 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: FINAL ORDER overruling petitioner's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation; adopting and approving the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's 11 Report and Recommendation; granting re spondent's 4 Motion to Dismiss; denying and dismissing the petition with prejudice for the reasons stated in the report; directing that judgment be entered in favor of the respondent; noting appeal procedures; declining to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 2/28/12. ECF to counsel, copy mailed to petitioner.(mwin, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Butts v. Clarke Doc. 16 FiLED UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FEB 2 8 2012 OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division Cl hnK. '.i.o r:-:,;;; "I" COL Vf WAYNE D. L_.-i_r_.:i: BUTTS, Petitioner, Case V. HAROLD W. Virginia CLARKE, Director Department of of No.: 2:llcv420 the Corrections, Respondent. FINAL This corpus of under federal the was 72 (b) the District of the of Rules of the to 2254. the to breaking a petition The of and for petition the City serve was a five of alleges Williamsburg of writ petitioner's entering, term the of referred to provisions the that No. for report 11. of as a habeas violations conviction and James result years was copy States § Civil in of in City which prison, Procedure, with of Court for on denied the report, and (C) , Rule the Eastern January and Judge and recommendation. filed be Magistrate 636(b)(l)(B) District and petition By United U.S.C. States judge the a 28 Rules United Virginia ECF of Federal magistrate recommending prejudice. of by suspended. matter to § pertaining of sentenced pursuant initiated U.S.C. Virginia, The of 28 Court eight months Rule was rights Circuit County, he matter ORDER The report 9, 2012, dismissed each 72 party with was Dockets.Justia.com advised of his right to file written objections and recommendations made by the magistrate 2012, the Court objections.1 the ECF No. petitioner's In received his 28. suggest resulted report, that in a the Recommendation 7, suppression petitioner to "liberally true reading of his 1 On request that construe is On January petitioner's filed no 26, written response to on was trial objects . . merits U.S. The the by on copies J. Report & to this transcripts from state trial magistrate evidence, court unreasonable objects of the has record, state an petitioner the "Butts the the Magis. before that that: nothing in based submitted and . finds the 11. he noted case court. judge law, or failed argument that a pro se pleadings. 1994). But January 23, litigant Jacobi the rule 2012, for an extension of time, entitled Blocker, requiring the filed no v. is Court 153 liberal granted than a F.R.D. liberal 84, construction the directing that later to 86 of petitioner's the petitioner's February 16, 2012. ECF the petitioner 14. 2 and findings petitioner." written objections be No. Court that No. further It Va. ECF judge facts." hearing presented by the (E.D. and the the noting The the respondent magistrate decision of his The adjudication determination statement, filed judge. the objections. presented no evidence, to and to These transcripts Inspector suppression reflect Shadrix, hearing, and the testimony the interrogating the subsequent Inspector Shadrix and the manager of the convicted of robbing. - 2 - of officer, trial store at a testimony of the petitioner was a pro £e petitioner's demand that the Court the petitioner's Congress with has pleadings to favor, particularly the a highly U.S.C. conflicting witnesses, credible than transcripts substitute for 28 § court the a of its credibility clear. same judgment federal judgment, court the 'federal redetermine credibility observed by the Branker, 520 Lonberger, error state F.3d 459 state 320, U.S. whatsoever 324 422, is the credibility state overturn courts not 434 Cir. 2008) (1983)) apparent to transcripts submitted by petitioner's objections court's and license has them.'" Court "But stark demeanor (quoting to to been Cagle v. Marshall v. omitted). on the Accordingly, APPROVE the having findings petitioner. based No the are OVERRULED. The Court, the be no (citation the Court court. must by more submits state [have] court, now this a error trial witnesses trial whose (4th of state asking the but review The witnesses trial of where conclusions petitioner court's habeas of legal law in context, standard to weighed and to as (e)(1). The of far substantive prosecution's that so habeas and testimony, for habeas Indeed, the petitioner. this the 2254(d), testimony finding the extend deferential findings See of in factual state courts. received not construe the evidence or dictated respect does reviewed the and record, recommendations - 3 - does set hereby ADOPT AND forth in the report of the United (ECF No. motion (ECF 11), to No. States and it dismiss 1) be reasons stated judgment be Magistrate is, therefore, (ECF No. DENIED in entered the in 4) AND this final order by Clerk of this Court, GRANTED DISMISSED report. favor filed of It the and WITH is from the judgment entry of such The petitioner has U.S.C. § of issue a certificate of U.S. The 322, of 2253{c)(2). 22(b) 537 the showing Federal 335-36 Clerk shall the denial of (30) of Therefore, Rules respondent's the petition for ORDERED the that a the Appellate appealability. entered pursuant of appeal with the United States Courthouse, within thirty 28 that 2012 respondent. Virginia 23510, substantial the 9, PREJUDICE filing a written notice judgment. January further Norfolk, "a on ORDERED that be The petitioner may appeal to Judge 600 days Granby Street, from the date of failed to demonstrate constitutional Court, pursuant Procedure, right." to Rule declines See Miller-El v. to Cockrell, (2003). mail petitioner and to counsel of a copy record of this for the Final Order to the respondent. Mark S. Davis United States District Judgg UNITED Norfolk, Virginia February^ , 2012 - 4 - STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
