Bradley v. Nooth

Bradley v. Nooth

Petitioner:	Tad Bradley
Respondent:	Mark Nooth
Case Number:	2:2014cv01548
Filed:	September 29, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Pendleton (2) Office
Presiding Judge:	Janice M. Stewart
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner Petitions: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 2, 2022	Filing 177 OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation, and I ADOPT her F. & R. (ECF 165 ) as my own opinion. I DENY the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 154 ) and dismiss this case with prejudic e. Additionally, I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 6/02/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)
April 18, 2022	Filing 167 OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT her F. & R. (ECF 165 ) as my own opinion. I DENY the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 154 ) and dismiss this case with prejudic e. Additionally, I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner 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. Signed on 4/18/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 2, 2022

Filing 177 OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation, and I ADOPT her F. & R. (ECF 165 ) as my own opinion. I DENY the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 154 ) and dismiss this case with prejudic e. Additionally, I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 6/02/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

April 18, 2022

Filing 167 OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT her F. & R. (ECF 165 ) as my own opinion. I DENY the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 154 ) and dismiss this case with prejudic e. Additionally, I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner 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. Signed on 4/18/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bradley v. Nooth
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Tad Bradley
Represented By:	Lisa Hay
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Mark Nooth
Represented By:	Lynn David Larsen
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?