MADRIGAL v. BELLEQUE, 02:09-CV-1115-SU. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20120307c37
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation (#32) on February 9, 2012, in which she recommends that this Court deny Petitioner David Madrigal's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#2) on the grounds that it is untimely. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation (#32) on February 9, 2012, in which she recommends that this Court deny Petitioner David Madrigal's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#2) on the grounds that it is untimely. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved ..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation (#32) on February 9, 2012, in which she recommends that this Court deny Petitioner David Madrigal's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#2) on the grounds that it is untimely. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation (#32). Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#2) is denied. The Court also declines 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.
Source: Leagle
