DROLLINGER v. NOOTH, 02:13-cv-01756-ST. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20150210b22
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#44) on December 4, 2014, in which she recommends the Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner has timely filed objections to the Findings & 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 Ma
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#44) on December 4, 2014, in which she recommends the Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner has timely filed objections to the Findings & 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 Mag..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#44) on December 4, 2014, in which she recommends the Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner has timely filed objections to the Findings & 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 & 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 there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [44], and therefore, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] is dismissed. Because Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
