Bradley v. Nooth

Filing 167

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT her F. & R. (ECF 165 ) as my own opinion. I DENY the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 154 ) and dismiss this case with prejudic e. Additionally, I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner 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. Signed on 4/18/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

Case 2:14-cv-01548-YY

Document 167

Filed 04/18/22

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PENDLETON DIVISION

TAD BRADLEY,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01548-YY

Petitioner,
V.

OPINION AND ORDER

MARK NOOTH, Superintendent of Snake
River Correctional institution,
Respondent.

MOSMAN,J.,
On March 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and
Recommendation ("F. & R. ") [ECF 165]. Judge You recommends that I deny the Second
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 154] and dismiss this case with prejudice.
Additionally, she recoihmends that the Court decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Objections were due on April 12, 2022. None were filed. I
agree with Judge You.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 nova determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de nova or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 2:14-cv-01548-YY

Document 167

Filed 04/18/22

Page 2 of 2

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 under 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)(l)(C).

CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF
165] as my own opinion. I DENY the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
[ECF 154] and dismiss this case with prejudice. Additionally, I decline to issue a Certificate of
Appealability on the basis that Petitioner 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.
DATED this

l&}.y of April, 2022.

2 - OPINION AND ORDER