Elliott v. Taylor

Filing 82

OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting Judge Mark D. Clarke's Findings and Recommendation 77 . Petitioner's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 is denied. I further decline to issue Petitioner a Certificate of Appealabil ity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) on the basis that petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 4/26/2019 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 4/26/2019.) (cp) Modified on 4/26/2019 to add the word Opinion, Resent NEF(cp).

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

KEVIN MICHAEL ELLIOTT,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02131-CL
Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
JERI TAYLOR,
Respondent.
___________________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF
No. 77, and the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Rule 8(b), Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Petitioner timely filed objections to the
F&R. ECF No. 79. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude
that the F&R is correct. Judge Clarke’s F&R is adopted in full. Consistent with Judge Clarke’s
F&R, Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 21, is
DENIED. I further decline to issue Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28

Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) on the basis that petitioner has not made a “substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 26th day of April, 2019.
/s/ Michael McShane________
Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER