Sharipoff v. Persson

Filing 61

CORRECTED OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 55 . I DENY Ms. Sharipoff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 . Because Ms. Sharipoff has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, I decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed on 6/1/2020 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dsg)

Case 3:16-cv-01711-AC

Document 61

Filed 06/01/20

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

FIVEA SHARIPOFF,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01711-AC
Petitioner
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
ROB PERSSON, Superintendent, Coffee
Creek Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

MOSMAN, J.,
On April 27, 2020, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 55], recommending that this court deny Ms. Sharipoff’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 2]. Ms. Sharipoff objected. [ECF 57]. Mr. Persson filed
a response. [ECF 58]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta, and I DENY the petition and
decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
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

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-01711-AC

Document 61

Filed 06/01/20

Page 2 of 2

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
recommendation 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 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)(1)(C).
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [55].
I DENY Ms. Sharipoff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2]. Because Ms. Sharipoff has
failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, I decline to issue a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2020.
____________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER