Losh v. Hill, No. 3:2007cv00317 - Document 38 (D. Or. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 31 : Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 is Denied. Signed on 4/20/09 by Judge James A. Redden. (gm)

Download PDF
FflfD'09 APR 20 16:28IJSDNJRP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON CV 07-317-PK RICHARD PAUL LOSH, Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. JEAN HILL, Superintendent, Respondent. REDDEN, Judge: On Febmary 24,2009, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed his Findings and Recommendation (doc. 31) that Richard Paul Losh's Amended Petition (doc. 21) 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)(1)(B) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure n(b) and 54(d)(2)(D). The district court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, and "may accept, reject, or modifY the recommended PAGE 1- OPINION AND ORDER 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. n(b). When a party timely objects to any portion of the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review ofthose portions 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), celio denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). The district court is not, however, required to review the magistrate judge's factual and legal conclusions to which the patiies 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 pOliions 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. 31) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this %day of April, 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.