Spradlin v. Nooth

Filing 70

Opinion and Order. Adopting the F&R 64 as my own opinion. Mr. Spradlins 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 28:2253(c)(2). Signed on 6/8/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (sss)

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

GREGORY SCOTT SPRADLIN,
No. 2:15-cv-00118-SU
Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
MARK NOOTH,
Respondent.
MOSMAN, J.,
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

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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.
DATED this

8th

day of June, 2017.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER