Peck v. Mills, No. 3:2008cv01299 - Document 47 (D. Or. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Petitioner timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 40 . I have, therefore, given those portions of the Findings and Recommendation a de novo review. I agree with Magistr ate Judge Papak's analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation 40 as my own opinion. I DENY the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 , and DISMISS this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 6/20/2011 by Judge James A. Redden. (pvh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION Case No. CV 08-1299-PK WALTER PECK, Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. DON MILLS, et a!., Respondents. REDDEN, District Judge: On April 12, 2011, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Reconunendation (doc.40) in the above-captioned case, reconunending that the court deny the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 19), and dismiss this action with prejudice. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B) and Federal Rules of PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Civil Procedure n(b) and 54(d)(2)(D). The magistrate judge only makes recommendations to the district court, and any party may file written objections to those recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 616(b)(l)(C). When a party timely objects to any portion of the magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the poliions of the Findings and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). The district COUlt may then "accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive fUlther evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. neb). The district COUlt is not required to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge, to which the parties do not object. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 FJd 1l14, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation. I have, therefore, given those pOltions of the Findings and Recommendation a de novo review. I agree with Magistrate Judge Papak's analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation as my own opinion. I DENY the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 19), and DISMISS this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9-t) day of June, 2011. / ""']ames A. Redden' .S. District Court Judge l/ 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.
