From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McInturff v. Thomas

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division
Oct 4, 2010
Civil No. 10-367-SU (D. Or. Oct. 4, 2010)

Opinion

Civil No. 10-367-SU.

October 4, 2010


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [5] recommending that the petition in this matter should be dismissed without prejudice, and that petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [2] should be denied as moot.

No objections were filed to this Findings and Recommendation, and the case was referred to me. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate. Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974).

No clear error appears on the face of the record. This court adopts the Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The petition in this matter is dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [2] is denied as moot. This court also adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability, on the basis that petitioner Christopher Lee McInturff has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 4 day of October, 2010.


Summaries of

McInturff v. Thomas

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division
Oct 4, 2010
Civil No. 10-367-SU (D. Or. Oct. 4, 2010)
Case details for

McInturff v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER LEE McINTURFF, Petitioner, v. WARDEN THOMAS Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division

Date published: Oct 4, 2010

Citations

Civil No. 10-367-SU (D. Or. Oct. 4, 2010)