GORDON v. FRANKE, 2:13-cv-00052-HU. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20150303c47
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [46] on December 1, 2014, recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [3] be denied and that a certificate of appealability be denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner filed timely objections to the F&R. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civi
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [46] on December 1, 2014, recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [3] be denied and that a certificate of appealability be denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner filed timely objections to the F&R. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [46] on December 1, 2014, recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [3] be denied and that a certificate of appealability be denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner filed timely objections to the F&R. 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 F&R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's F&R.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hubel's F&R [46]. Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [3] is DENIED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED because the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
