Hoover v. Clarke, No. 1:2020cv01107 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 1/31/2022. (kgall) (C/M to plaintiff)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hoover v. Clarke Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 63 Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Malik Raheem Hoover, Petitioner, ) ) ) V. ) Harold W.Clarke, ) ) Respondent. l;20cvll07(LO/IDD) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Malik Raheem Hoover ("Petitioner" or "Hoover"), a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his January 9, 2015 convictions in the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton, Virginia, for robbery, two counts of abduction, breaking and entering while armed with a deadly weapon, and sexual battery. Commonwealth v. Hoover. Case Nos. CRl300089-00 thru -03,-05. On May 24,2021, Respondent filed a Rule 5 Answer and a Motion to Dismiss, with supporting briefs and exhibits. Petitioner was advised of his right to file responsive materials pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975)and Local Rule 7(K)to the motion to dismiss, but he has not filed a response. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the respondent's Motion to Dismiss must be granted and the petition will be dismissed with prejudice. I. Procedural History By final order dated January 9,2015,the Circuit Court ofthe City of Hampton convicted Petitioner of robbery in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-58, two counts of abduction in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-48, breaking and entering while armed with a deadly weapon in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-90, and sexual battery in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2- Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2 of 20 PageID# 64 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 3 of 20 PageID# 65 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 4 of 20 PageID# 66 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 5 of 20 PageID# 67 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 6 of 20 PageID# 68 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 69 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 8 of 20 PageID# 70 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 9 of 20 PageID# 71 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 10 of 20 PageID# 72 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 11 of 20 PageID# 73 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 12 of 20 PageID# 74 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 13 of 20 PageID# 75 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 14 of 20 PageID# 76 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 15 of 20 PageID# 77 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 16 of 20 PageID# 78 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 17 of 20 PageID# 79 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 18 of 20 PageID# 80 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 19 of 20 PageID# 81 Case 1:20-cv-01107-LO-IDD Document 16 Filed 01/31/22 Page 20 of 20 PageID# 82
]]>
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.
