PEREZ v. KILMER, 3:11-cv-00127-ST. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20131216d86
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2013
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#57) on October 29, 2013, in which she recommends that the Court should deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1). Petitioner timely 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, t
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#57) on October 29, 2013, in which she recommends that the Court should deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1). Petitioner timely 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, th..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#57) on October 29, 2013, in which she recommends that the Court should deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1). Petitioner timely 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 (#57). Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
