Farabee v. Clarke et al, No. 2:2016cv00268 - Document 84 (E.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: FINAL ORDER. The Court does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the 67 Report and Recommendations filed February 12, 2018. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and that the Petition be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondents. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 5/14/2018. Copies mailed 5/15/2018. (jmey, )

Download PDF
Farabee v. Clarke et al Doc. 84 FLED UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA MAY 1 5 2018 Norfolk Division BRIAN FARABEE, CLERK. US DiSTRtCT COURT #1002739, NOPFOi.K. VA Petitioner, V. ACTION NO. HAROLD W. CLARKE, 2:16cv268 Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, JACK BARBER, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, Respondents. FINAL Before the Court is a filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. to Dismiss the ORDER Petition for a § Writ of Habeas Corpus 2241 and the Respondents' Petition. In his Petition, the Motion pro se Petitioner's chief complaint is that because the Williamsburg & James City County Circuit Court requiring civil commitment for has adjudicated Petitioner as treatment of his mental illness, any time that Petitioner is transferred to any VDOC facility, or his care is otherwise assumed by an entity not under the control of the Commissioner of VDBHDS, his Constitutional rights are violated. The Judge for Petition report was referred to a United and recommendation pursuant States to Magistrate the provisions Dockets.Justia.com of the 28 U.S.C. Rules § of 636 (b)(1)(B) the United District of Virginia. and (C) States and Local District Civil Court Rule for the 72 Eastern The Magistrate Judge's Amended Report and Recommendation filed February 12, the Petition with prejudice. 2018, recommends dismissal of On April 23, 2018, the Petitioner filed objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation. Respondents have not of responded to the Petitioner's The objections and the time to do so has expired. The Court, objections having filed by reviewed the Petitioner to Recommendation, and having made ^ the portions findings objected and to, does recommendations Recommendation filed GRANTED, and that the and examined Amended the Report and novo findings with respect to hereby 12, ADOPT and APPROVE the the Report and in 2018. It Motion to Dismiss, Petition, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. the set . forth February ORDERED that the Respondents' record ECF No. 1, is, therefore, ECF No. be 30, DENIED be and It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the Respondents. The pursuant Petitioner to this may Final appeal Order by from filing appeal with the Clerk of this court. 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, the a written entered notice of United States Courthouse, Virginia 23510, days from the date of entry of such judgment. 2 judgment within thirty (30) The Petitioner has failed showing of the denial of a the Court pursuant declines to Procedure. Rule See to demonstrate a constitutional right, issue 22(b) to any the of Miller-El v. certificate Federal Cockrell, and therefore, of Rules 537 substantial appealability of U.S. Appellate 322, 335-36 (2003) . The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Final Order Petitioner and to counsel of record for the Respondents. I t i s so ORDERED. K Mark S. Davis UnitedStatesDistrict Judge MARK UNITED May , 2 018 S. STATES DAVIS DISTRICT JUDGE 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.