Leonard v. Clarke
Filing
15
FINAL ORDER accepting the findings and recommendations set forth in 14 Report and Recommendations; granting respondent's 7 Motion to Dismiss; denying and dismissing the petition with prejudice; directing that judgment be entered in favor of respondent; noting appeal procedures; declining to issue any certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 5/7/12. ECF to counsel, copy mailed to petitioner.(mwin, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
"1
Norfolk Division
MAY
JAMES EARL LEONARD, #1005449,
7 2012
Cii-
Petitioner,
v.
ACTION NO. 2:11 cv492
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent.
FINAL ORDER
Petitioner, a Virginia inmate, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
The petition alleges violation of federal rights pertaining to Petitioner's
conviction on December 2,2008, in the Circuit Court for the City of Culpepper for abduction.
As
a result of the conviction, Petitioner was sentenced to serve ten years in the Virginia penal system
with four years suspended.
The petition was referred
to
a United
States Magistrate Judge
for report and
recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and (C) and Local Civil
Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed March 21,2012, recommends dismissal of
the petition with prejudice.
The Court has received no objections to the Report and
Recommendation and the time for filing objections has expired.
The Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and
Recommendation filed March 21,2012.
The Sixth Amendment portion of Ground (1) alleging a
constitutional violation of Leonard's speedy trial rights is DENIED because it was never
adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Virginia and the claim is procedurally defaulted.
The
portion of Ground (1) based on Virginia's statute is DENIED because questions of state law are
not cognizable on federal habeas review.
Ground (2), alleging insufficient evidence of abduction,
is DENIED because the Virginia state court reasonably applied clearly established federal law, and
based the decision to deny this claim on a reasonable determination of the facts.
Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the petition is DENIED
and DISMISSED with prejudice.
It is further ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of
Respondent.
Petitioner may appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to this Final Order by filing a
written notice of appeal with the Clerk of this court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street,
Norfolk, Virginia 23510, within 30 days from the date of entry of such judgment.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right," therefore, the Court declines to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 22(b)
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
See Miller-El v. Cockrell. 537 U.S. 322, 335-36
(2003).
The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Final Order to Petitioner and to counsel of record for
Respondent.
Mark S. Davis
United States District Judge
Mark S. Davis
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Norfolk, Virginia
April
~
, 201
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?