LANDINGHAM v. FRANKE, 2:12-cv-01678-ST. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20131113c58
Visitors: 37
Filed: Nov. 08, 2013
Latest Update: Nov. 08, 2013
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#22) on October 9, 2013, in which she recommends that the Court deny Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1). Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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 m
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#22) on October 9, 2013, in which she recommends that the Court deny Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1). Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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 mu..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#22) on October 9, 2013, in which she recommends that the Court deny Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1). Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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).
I have carefully considered Petitioner's objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#22). Accordingly, Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied 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.
Source: Leagle
