DelaRosa v. Myrick, 2:15-cv-02379-JR. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20200116f57
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 15, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2020
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [83] on September 9, 2019 in which she recommends that the Court deny the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [31] and enter a judgment of dismissal. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of th
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [83] on September 9, 2019 in which she recommends that the Court deny the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [31] and enter a judgment of dismissal. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [83] on September 9, 2019 in which she recommends that the Court deny the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [31] and enter a judgment of dismissal. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Petitioner's objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation [83]. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [31] and DISMISSES this case. However, the Court issues a Certificate of Appealability on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in Petitioner's third claim for relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
