Johnson v. Clarke, No. 2:2014cv00027 - Document 19 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 17 Report and Recommendations. The Court fully accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and accordingly, hereby ADOPTS and APPROVES the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 17. Copy of Order mailed to the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent on 1/20/2015. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 1/20/2015. (bgra)

Download PDF
Johnson v. Clarke Doc. 19 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA JAN 2 0 2015 Norfolk Division c RODRIQUEZ L. JOHNSON. - Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-27 HAROLD W. CLARKE. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent. FINAL ORDER Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition. The pro se Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his January 30, 1997 conviction of first degree murder, robbery, and two firearm offenses. The Petitioner was sentenced to seventy-three years of imprisonment. The matter was referred for disposition to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Eastern District of Virginia Local Civil Rule 72, and the April 2, 2002, Standing Order on Assignment of Certain Matters to United States Magistrate Judges. In a Report and Recommendation filed on December 9. 2014. the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss, finding the Petitioner's claims to be time-barred and procedurally defaulted. ECF No. 17. The parties were advised of their right to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. On December 23, 2014,' the Petitioner filed his objection to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 18. The Respondent did not file an objection, and the time to do so has expired. ' The objection was filed as of the datethe Petitioner certified that lie placed it in the prison mailing system. Set' ECF No. 18 at 9; see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (articulating the prison mailbox rule). Dockets.Justia.com Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the Petitioner's objections. After review, the Court fully accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and accordingly, hereby ADOPTS and APPROVES the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 17. It is ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED, and that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that Judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent. The Petitioner is hereby notified that he may appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to this Final Order by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Court at the Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, within thirty (30) days from the date Judgment is entered. Because the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1). the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See Mi!!er-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the Petitioner and counsel of record for the Respondent. It is so ORDERED. Arenda LTWright-AHen United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Norfolk. Virginia

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.