Taylor v. Clarke, No. 2:2015cv00246 - Document 38 (E.D. Va. 2016)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER: The Court does hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed July 1, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 31) is D ENIED. The Court declines to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies of Order sent as DIRECTED on 8.11.16. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 8/10/2016 and filed on 8/11/2016. (epri)

Download PDF
Taylor v. Clarke Doc. 38 UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT FILED COURT OF VIRGINIA AUG 1 1 2016 Norfolk Division CLERK. US DISTRICT COUflT RALPH TAYLOR, JR., #1064683 NOnFni.K, VA Petitioner, ACTION NO. V. HAROLD CLARKE, 2:15cv246 Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent. FINAL This matter is before the ORDER court on petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his previous petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. {EOF No. 31). The motion sets forth additional arguments in support of his previous claim that petitioner's sentence is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court's holding that juvenile defendants may not be sentenced to life in prison without parole for non-homicide offenses. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. The matter was referred to a 48, 70 (2010). United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and (C) and Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Report and Recommendation filed July 1, 2016, recommends denying the motion to alter or amend judgment because Taylor was not sentenced to life in prison. In addition, his federal habeas 1 Dockets.Justia.com claim was filed more than one year after the rule in Graham was announced. Each party was advised of his right to file written objections to Magistrate Judge. the findings On and July recommendations 12, 2016, the made court by the received petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation and on July 18, 2016 objections. the court received petitioner's supplemental The respondent filed no response to the objections and the time for responding has now expired. The Court, having reviewed the record and examined the objections filed by petitioner to the Report and Recommendation, and having made ^ objected to, does novo findings with respect to the portions hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed July 1, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 31) is DENIED. Petitioner is hereby notified that he may appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to this Final Order by filing a written notice of appeal Courthouse, 600 with the Clerk Granby Street, of this Norfolk, court. Virginia United States 23510, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of such judgment. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, 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, 123 S.ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Final Order to petitioner and provide an electronic copy of the Final order to counsel of record for respondent. Mark S. Davis United States District Judge MARK S. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Norfolk, Virginia August 10, 2016

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.