SPRADLIN v. NOOTH

No. 2:15-cv-00118-SU.

GREGORY SCOTT SPRADLIN, Petitioner, v. MARK NOOTH, Respondent.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Prisoner Petitions: Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gregory Scott Spradlin, Petitioner, represented by Nell Brown , Federal Public Defender's Office.

Mark Nooth, Respondent, represented by Nicholas M. Kallstrom , Oregon Department of Justice.


OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Chief District Judge.

On March 6, 2017, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [64], recommending that Mr. Spradlin's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] should be DENIED. Judge Sullivan also recommended that I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Mr. Spradlin has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Mr. Spradlin objected [66] to the F&R, and Mr. Nooth responded [67].

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivan's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [64] as my own opinion. Mr. Spradlin's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] is DENIED. In addition, I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Mr. Spradlin has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases