Provost v. Clarke, No. 3:2018cv00132 - Document 22 (E.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See OPINION for complete details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 12/19/2018. Copy mailed to Petitioner 12/19/2018.(ccol, )

Download PDF
Provost v. Clarke Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA L Richmond Division DEC 19 2018 MARCEL RENE PROVOST, T» a CLLRK, U S. DiS i niCT COURT Petitioner, Richmond,va V. Civil Action No.3;18CV132 HAROLD W.CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Marcel Rene Provost, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 3) challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News, Virginia (hereinafter, "Circuit Court"). Respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that the one-year statute of limitations governing federal habeas petitions bars the § 2254 Petition. Despite the provision of notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Provost has not responded.' For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss(ECF No. 9)will be GRANTED. 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Following a guilty plea. Provost was convicted of carnal knowledge of a minor and was sentenced to five years with all five years suspended. (ECF No. 11-1, at 1-2.) The Circuit Court placed him on supervised probation for five years beginning immediately on the date of sentencing, July 18, 2007. (Id at 2.) Because Provost was a citizen of Canada, the sentencing 'By Memorandum Order entered on September 6, 2018, the Court also noted that "[a]lthough the time to file a reply has long expired. Petitioner may request leave of the Court to file a late reply to the Motion to Dismiss." (ECF No. 18, at 1.) By Memorandum Order entered on December 18, 2018, the Court denied Provost's letter request for an unspecified extension of time to file a reply because he failed to follow the Court's directives and had not been diligent in exercising his right to file a reply. (ECF No. 21.) Dockets.Justia.com

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.