Bell v. Persson, No. 6:2012cv02367 - Document 34 (D. Or. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 30 as my own opinion. Because petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is granted as to the following issues: whethertrial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate Petitioners case, causing Petitioner to enter a guilty plea that was not knowing and voluntary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 6/19/14 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION WILLIAM BELL, No. 6:12-cv-02367-ST Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. ROB PERSSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Correctional Institution, Respondent. MOSMAN, J., On April 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) [30] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Petitioner s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be DENIED. Objections [32] were filed and a response [33] was received. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 1 OPINION AND ORDER make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [30] as my own opinion. Because petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is granted as to the following issues: whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate Petitioner s case, causing Petitioner to enter a guilty plea that was not knowing and voluntary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 19th day of June, 2014. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge 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.
