Cochran v. White
ORDER. It is ORDERED the the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the 33 Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the Court's own opinion. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Petitioner is ADVISED that he may seek a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510 within thirty (30) days. Signed by District Judge Robert G. Doumar on 9/7/2021. Copies mailed 9/7/2021. (jmey, )
Case 2:20-cv-00315-RGD-LRL Document 35 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 199
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
PATRICK ELLIS COCHRAN,
CIVIL ACTION NO.2:20-cv-3I5
Virginia Department of Corrections,
Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254, ECF No. 1, and the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 17. In his Petition, the pro
se Petitioner alleges violation of federal rights pertaining to his convictions in the Circuit Court
of Fairfax County for Abduction and Malicious Wounding. As a result of the convictions.
Petitioner was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison with 15 years suspended for Malicious
Wounding and 8 years in prison for Abduction.
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)(1)(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 June 29, 2021, recommends dismissal of
the Petition with prejudice. ECF No. 33. On July 21, 2021, Petitioner filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation. Respondent has not responded to Petitioner's objections and the
time to do so has expired.
The Court, having reviewed the record and examined the objections filed by Petitioner to
the Report and Recommendation, and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions
Case 2:20-cv-00315-RGD-LRL Document 35 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 200
objected to, does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in
the Report and Recommendation filed June 29, 2021. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17, be GRANTED,and that the Petition, ECF No. 1,
be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that judgment
be entered in favor of the Respondent.
Finding that the procedural basis for dismissal of Petitioner's § 2254 petition is not
debatable, and altematively finding that Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right," a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);
see Rules Gov. § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. 11(a); Miller-El v. Cockrell 537 U.S. 322, 33538(2003); Slack v. McDaniel. 529 U.S. 473,483-85 (2000).
Petitioner is ADVISED that because a certificate of appealability is denied by this Court,
he may seek a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Fed.
Rule App. Proc. 22(b); Rules Gov. § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. 11(a). If Petitioner intends to
seek a certificate of appealability from the Fourth Circuit, he must do so within thirty(30) days
from the date of this Order. Petitioner may seek such a certificate by filing a written notice of
appeal with the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby
Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510.
The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to Petitioner and to counsel of record for the
Respondent. It is so ORDERED.
September H ,2021
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?