Petersen v. Taylor, No. 2:2016cv00970 - Document 30 (D. Or. 2018)

Court Description: Opinion and Order re: Findings & Recommendation: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2254 is DENIED 2 . Adopting the F&R in full. This case is DISMISSED 27 . I further decline to enter a Certificate of Appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28:2253(c)(2). (A copy of this Order mailed to Petitioner). Signed on 7/9/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (jkm)
Download PDF
Petersen v. Taylor Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDLETON DIVISION MICHAEL L. PETERSEN, No. 2:16-cv-00970-CL Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. JERI TAYLOR, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Respondent. MOSMAN,J., On May 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [27], recommending that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] should be DENIED and this case DISMISSED with prejudice. He also recommended that a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED. No objections were filed. 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 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)(l)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to whlch 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). Whlle the level of scrutiny under whlch 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)(l)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Clarke's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R in full. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] is DENIED and thls case is DISMISSED. I further decline to enter a Certificate of Appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT rs so ORDERED. t!J_ DATED thls __3__ day of July, 2018. MICHAEL W. MOSMAN ChlefUnited States District Judge 2 - OPINION AND ORDER