Souvanaratana v. Clarke

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 08/10/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

DO SOUVANARATANA,

Petitioner,

V.

Civil Action No. 3:16CV993

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Do Souvanaratana, a Virginia probationer proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§2254 Petition," ECF No. 1) challenging his convictions in the
Circuit Court of the County of Arlington, Virginia. On July 21, 2017, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation wherein he recommended denying Souvanaratana's §
2254 Petition as meritless. (ECF No. 17.) The Court advised Souvanaratana that he could file

objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Report and Recommendation.
Souvanaratana 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 of those portions

ofthe report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to
focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties' dispute."

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written 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. 17) will be
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) will be GRANTED.

Souvanaratana's § 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. Souvanaratana's claims and the
action will be DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

^//^//7

^
1 Virginia
Richmond, .r - •

JohnA.Gibney,Jr.

United States District Ji