Pettit v. Nooth, No. 3:2009cv01281 - Document 28 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. I Adopt Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 26 as my own opinion. I Deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 , and Dismiss this action with prejudice. Additionally, I Deny a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2253(c)(2) because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 06/13/2011 by Judge James A. Redden. (pvh)

Download PDF
" ~ LEI"; '-, -,',. '" , 1.·.J,JUN'1115:LJ4USDc-oRP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION MICHAEL PETTIT, Civ. No. 09-1281-AC Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. MARK NOOTH, Superintendent of Snake River Correctional Institution, Respondent. REDDEN, Judge: On May 12, 2011, Magistrate Judge John Acosta filed his Findings and Recommendation (doc. 26) that the court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. I), and dismiss this action. Magistrate Judge Acosta also recommended the court deny a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22S3(c)(2) because Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. PAGE I - OPINION AND ORDER The matter is now before this court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party timely filed objections. This relieves me of my obligation to review Magistrate Judge Acosta's factual [mdings de novo. 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(I)(C); see also Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); United States v. Revna-Tapil!, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 26) as my own opinion. I DENY the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1), and DISMISS this action with prejudice. Additionally, I DENY a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this n day of June, 2011. PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.