Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:2017cv00099 - Document 18 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 12/12/2017. (sbea, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Clarke Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division PERCELL WASHINGTON WILLIAMS, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV99 HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Percell Washington Williams, a Virginia probationer proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§2254 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach. On October 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation wherein he recommended denying the § 2254 Petition. (ECF No. 17.) The Court advised Williams that he could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Report and Recommendation. Williams has not responded. "The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final deteraiination remains with this court." Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408, 410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written objection, this Dockets.Justia.com Court may adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation without conducting a de novo review. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.^ 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005). There being no objections, and the Court having determined that the Report and Recommendation is correct on its merits, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) will be GRANTED. Williams's § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. Williams's claims and the action will be DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: Richmond, Virginia John A. Gibney, Jr. United States Distri(A Ji/dg^
]]>
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.
