SHEPHERD v. NOOTH, 1:09-cv-1284-CL. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20120622c96
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge. 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). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. 636 (b) (1) (C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. Mach., Inc. , 656 F.2d
Summary: ORDER OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge. 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). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. 636 (b) (1) (C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. Mach., Inc. , 656 F.2d 1..
More
ORDER
OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge.
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). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation, so have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that the amended pet ion fails on its merits. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.
CONCLUSION
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#is adopted. The amended petition (#47) is denied. If petitioner appeals, I will deny a certificate of appealability because petitioner not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
