Elliott v. Taylor, No. 2:2015cv02131 - Document 82 (D. Or. 2019)

Court Description: 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).

Download PDF
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

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.