From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nicholis v. Coursey

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Aug 3, 2010
Civ. No. 09-567-CL (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. 09-567-CL.

August 3, 2010


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).

I have given this matter de novo review. I find no error. All but one of petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted or did not raise issues of federal law. The remaining claim, that the jury should have been told of the potential sentence, does not show a violation of federal law. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#24) is adopted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is dismissed. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Nicholis v. Coursey

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Aug 3, 2010
Civ. No. 09-567-CL (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2010)
Case details for

Nicholis v. Coursey

Case Details

Full title:QUENTIN TITUS NICHOLIS, Petitioner, v. RICK COURSEY, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Aug 3, 2010

Citations

Civ. No. 09-567-CL (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2010)