Donovan v. Salazar, 3:18-cv-00198-MK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20181205d86
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. MCSHANE , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 12), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Although Plaintiff did not file objections, I reviewed the legal principles de novo . United States v. Bernhardt , 840 F.2d 1441 , 1445 (9 TH Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 12)
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. MCSHANE , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 12), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Although Plaintiff did not file objections, I reviewed the legal principles de novo . United States v. Bernhardt , 840 F.2d 1441 , 1445 (9 TH Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) i..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. MCSHANE, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 12), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Although Plaintiff did not file objections, I reviewed the legal principles de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9TH Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) is adopted. The petition is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The proper Respondent is the custodian of the institution having custody of Petitioner. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). According to Respondent, Richard Ives was the warden at Federal Correctional Institution Sheridan when Petitioner filed this action, and Josias Salazar has since replaced him. Salazar is therefore substituted as the proper Respondent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Source: Leagle
