Opinion
Case No. 3:10-cv-040.
October 15, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability and Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 29, 30).
Petitioner notes that when he was offered the opportunity to consent to plenary magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), he was advised that any appeal of an adverse ruling would lie directly with the Court of Appeals. That is accurate: consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction removes an intervening review by a district judge between a final magistrate judge ruling and consideration by the court of appeals. In a habeas corpus case, however, it does not remove the requirement for a certificate of appealability. Such a certificate is required in any habeas corpus appeal, whether from a magistrate judge sitting under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) or from a district judge.
Having reviewed its final Decision on the merits in light of Petitioner's Motion for a certificate of appealability, the Court is persuaded that reasonable jurists would not disagree with its conclusions. Accordingly, the Motion for Certificatge of Appealability is denied.
The Court further concludes that any appeal would be objectively frivolous. the Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis is therefore also denied.
October 15, 2010.