Taylor v. Clarke

Filing 29

FINAL ORDER: The Court does hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed April 21, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Taylor's Motion to Amend (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, Taylor' ;s Motion for Forensic Testing Experts (ECF No. 22) and Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 24) are DENIED, respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, and Taylor's petition is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. Copies of Order sent as DIRECTED on 6.3.16. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 6/2/2016. (epri, )

UNITED
FOR

THE

STATES

DISTRICT

EASTERN DISTRICT

OF

r

1

COOR"

-

LED

VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

JLfN - 3 2016
RALPH TAYLOR,

JR.,

#1064683

CLERK. US

1

CT COUHT

NC'= -Oi K VA

Petitioner,
ACTION NO.

V.

HAROLD CLARKE,

2:15cv246

Director

of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent.

FINAL

ORDER

This matter was initiated by petition for a
corpus under 28

Ralph

Taylor,

alleges

U.S.C.

Jr.

violation

§

2254,

submitted by pro se petitioner,

("petitioner"
of

federal

writ of habeas

or

rights

"Taylor").
pertaining

The
to

petition

petitioner's

convictions in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Prince William County
of

four

counts of

felony,

use of

a

firearm during the commission of a

two counts of robbery, shooting into an occupied vehicle,

aggravated malicious wounding and attempted capital murder.

As a

result of the convictions, Taylor was sentenced to serve a total of

138 years in prison, with 75 years suspended,

resulting in a 63-

year active sentence.

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
for report and recommendation pursuant
U.S.C.

§

636 (b) (1) (B)

and

(C)

and Rule

to the provisions of
72

of

the

Rules

of

28
the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
1

The

Report

and

Recommendation

filed

April

granting Taylor's Motion to Amend (ECF No.
Motion

for

Forensic

respondent's

dismissing

Motion

Taylor's

Testing
to

Experts

Dismiss

petition

(ECF

with

21,

recommends

18), denying Taylor's

(ECF
No.

2016

No.

22),

granting

15),

and

denying

and

prejudice.

The

Report

and

Recommendation also recommended that Taylor's "Motion to Vacate"
(ECF No.

24)

be considered as an objection or appeal under Rule

72(a) of the Magistrate Judge's previous non-dispositive rulings on

his Motion to Appoint Counsel

(ECF No.

3) , Motion for Discovery

(ECF No. 4), and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No 13). Each
party was advised of his right to file written objections to the

findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

On May

2, 2016 the court received petitioner's Objections to the Report and

Recommendation and on May 16, 2016 the court received petitioner's
Supplemental Objections

to the Report

and Recommendation.

The

respondent filed no response to the objections and the time for
responding has now expired.
The Court, having reviewed the record and examined all of the

objections filed by petitioner to the Report and Recommendation,

and having made ^

objected to,

does

novo findings with respect to the portions

hereby adopt

and

approve

the

findings

and

recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed

April 21, 2016.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Taylor's Motion to

Amend (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, Taylor's Motion for Forensic Testing
Experts (ECF No. 22) and Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 24) are DENIED,
2

respondent's

Motion

to

Dismiss

(ECF

No.

15)

is

GRANTED,

and

Taylor's petition is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice.

Petitioner is hereby notified that he may appeal

from the

judgment entered pursuant to this Final Order by filing a written
notice

of

appeal

Courthouse,

600

with

the

Clerk

Granby Street,

of

this

Norfolk,

court,

Virginia

United

States

23510,

within

thirty {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.
V.

Cockrell,

123 S.Ct.

1029,

1039

See Miller-El

(2003).

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Final Order to

petitioner and provide an electronic copy of the Final order to
counsel of record for respondent.

/s/
MARK S.

DAVIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Norfolk, Virginia
,

2016