Farabee v. Superintendent Meherrin River Regional Jail et al, No. 2:2015cv00256 - Document 42 (E.D. Va. 2016)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER. The Court does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the 36 Report and Recommendations filed June 24, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Respondent's 10 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 9/29/2016. Copies mailed 9/30/2016. (jmey, )

Download PDF
Farabee v. Superintendent Meherrin River Regional Jail et al Doc. 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division BRIAN FARABEE, Petitioner, V. ACTION NO. 2:15cv256 SUPERINTENDENT MEHERRIN RIVER REGIONAL JAIL, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, and COMMISSIONER OF THE DBHDS, Respondents. FINAL ORDER Before the Court is a Petition for a filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. to Dismiss the Petition. alleges violations of § 2254 and the Respondent's Motion In his Petition, his Writ of Habeas Corpus constitutional the pro se Petitioner rights pertaining to the lawfulness of his probation violation hearing. The Petition Judge for of U.S.C. the 28 Rules District report of of § referred United Virginia. with River Regional to a United and recommendation pursuant 636(b)(1)(B) the Recommendation, Petition was and District The Magistrate Jail and as the 2016, to the Magistrate to the provisions and Local States filed June 26, prejudice (C) States Civil Court for Judge's Rule the 72 Eastern Report recommends dismissal of Superintendent Commissioner of the of of and the Meherrin Department of Dockets.Justia.com Behavioral Health and without prejudice as to the Virginia Department of Corrections. On July the and 14, 2016, and Recommendation. Developmental Services, Petitioner timely filed objections The Respondent did not to the respond Petitioner's objections and the time to do so expired. by Order of file a September 6, response. 2016, Report to the However, the Court ordered Respondent Respondent filed a to response on September 19, 2016. The Court, having reviewed the record and examined the objections filed by Petitioner to the Report and Recommendation, and the response filed by Respondent, and having made ^ findings with respect to the portions objected to, novo does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report therefore, No. and 10, and Recommendation It is, ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF be GRANTED, DISMISSED filed June 24, and that the Petition, WITH PREJUDICE. It is 2016. ECF No. further 1, be DENIED ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondent. The pursuant Petitioner to this appeal with the may Final Clerk of 600 Granby Street, appeal Order this Norfolk, by from filing court. the a written United States Virginia 23510, days from the date of entry of such judgment. 2 judgment entered notice of Courthouse, within thirty (30) The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court declines pursuant to Rule Procedure. See to issue 22(b) Miller-El of v. any certificate the Federal Cockrell, and therefore, of Rules 537 substantial appealability of U.S. Appellate 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. Marks. Davis United States District JudgB MARK S. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September , 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.