Drayton v. Clarke, No. 3:2018cv00303 - Document 22 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 11/01/2018. Copy mailed to petitioner.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Drayton v. Clarke Doc. 22 L IP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA F NOV - 1 8 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA Richmond Division KEVIN MICHAEL DRAYTON,JR., Petitioner, V. Civil Action No.3:18CV303 HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Kevin Michael Drayton, Jr., a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of Hanover County of: first degree murder; aggravated malicious wounding; use ofa firearm to commit murder; conspiracy to commit robbery; and, used of a firearm to commit aggravated malicious woimding. On October 3,2018,the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation wherein he recommended denying the § 2254 Petition. (ECF No.21.) The Court advised Drayton that he could file objections within fourteen(14)days after the entry ofthe Report and Recommendation. Drayton 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 determination 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 ofthose portions ofthe report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The filing ofobjections to a magistrate's report enables the districtjudge to focus attention on those issues—^factual and legal—^that are at the heart ofthe parties' dispute." Thomas v. Arn,474 U.S. 140,147(1985)(footnote omitted). In the absence ofa specific written Dockets.Justia.com objection, this 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.21) will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Motion to Dismiss(ECF No. 11)will be GRANTED. Drayton's § 2254 Petition(ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. Drayton's claims and the action will be DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M.Hannah La United States District Judge Date: NOV Q 1 2018 Richmond, Virginia
]]>
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.
