Houff v. Blacketter, No. 3:2006cv00445 - Document 52 (D. Or. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 48 : Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2254 2 is Denied. Signed on 2/2/09 by Judge James A. Redden. (gm)

Download PDF
FILED'0'3 FEB 02 i4:22uSDC'ORP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON WAYNE THOMAS HOUFF, CV 06-445-PK Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. SHARON BLACKETTER, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Respondent. REDDEN, Judge: On November 24, 2008, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed his Findings and Recommendation (doc. 48) that Wayne Thomas Houff's Petition (doc. 2) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied, and judgment entered dismissing this case with prejudice. The matter is now before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure n(b) and 54(d)(2)(D). When a party timely objects to any portion of the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district COUlt must conduct a de novo review of those pOltions of the Findings and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. neb); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). In conducting a de novo review, the district COUlt is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, and "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. neb). The district COUlt is not, however, required to review the magistrate judge's factual and legal conclusions to which the parties do not object. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation. I have, therefore, given those portions of the Findings and Recommendation a de novo review. I agree with Magistrate Judge Papak's analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 48) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this .2!aay ofFebmmy, 2009. PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.