Morley v. Clarke, No. 2:2015cv00134 - Document 35 (E.D. Va. 2016)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER. The Court does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the 32 Report and Recommendations filed April 22, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Respondents 20 Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 6/14/2016. Copies mailed 6/14/2016. (jmey, )

Download PDF
Morley v. Clarke Doc. 35 UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division EUGENE ELLIOTT MORLEY, #1199472 Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. HAROLD W. CLARKE, 2:15CV134 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, ECF Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition, Petition, the constitutional count of his pro rights in relation (18) Norfolk, years and nine 1, and 20. the In his alleges violations of his to conviction for one his probation on July 28, for the City of eighteen Petitioner ECF No. carjacking and one count of violation of (unsupervised) Court se No. 2010, the terms of in the Circuit which resulted in a sentence of (9) months, with five (5) years suspended. The Petition was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of the 28 U.S.C. Rules District of of § 636(b)(1)(B) the and (C) and Local Civil Rule 72 of United States District Virginia. The Magistrate Court for the Judge's Eastern Report and Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation, filed April 22, the Petition with prejudice. Petitioner timely Recommendation. filed 2016, recommends ECF No. 22. objections ECF No. 33. dismissal On May 9, to the 2016, Report of the and The Respondent did not respond to the Petitioner's objections and the time to do so has expired. The Court, having reviewed the record and examined the objections filed by Petitioner, and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed April 22, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, GRANTED, be and that the Petition, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ECF No. 1, DENIED be and It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent. The pursuant Petitioner to this may Final appeal Order from by filing appeal with the Clerk of this court, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, the a judgment written entered notice of United States Courthouse, Virginia 23510, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of such judgment. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and therefore, the Court declines to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003) . The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Final Order Petitioner and to counsel of record for the Respondent. It is SO ORDERED. hfWnsQMark S. Davis United States District Judge MARK S. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE "3W. 14- < 2016 to

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.