De la Portilla v. Myrick, No. 2:2016cv01365 - Document 67 (D. Or. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's F&R 60 and therefore, petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is denied because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 7/3/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
De la Portilla v. Myrick Doc. 67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JOSE A. DE LA PORTILLA, Petitioner, Case No. 2:16-cv-01365-MK OPINION AND ORDER vs. J. YRICK, Superintendent, TRCI, Respondent. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustaa T. Kasubhai issued a Findings & Recommendation (F&R) (doc. 60) on March 21, 2019, recommending that Petitioner Jose De la Portilla's Petition or Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner timely iled objections (doc. 65) to the F&R to which respondent responded (doc. 66). The matter is now beore me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's F&R, the district court must make a de nova determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). I have carefully considered petitioner's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the F&R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's F&R (doc. 60) and therefore, petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is denied 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 IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 3 ~ y of July 2019. Ann Aiken 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.
