Newcomb v. Belleque, No. 3:2009cv00936 - Document 60 (D. Or. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubels recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 53 as my own opinion. Petitioners Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 33 is DENIED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed on 5/15/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION SHAWN M. NEWCOMB, Petitioner, No. 3:09-cv-00936-HU v. OPINION AND ORDER BRIAN BELLEQUE, Respondent. MOSMAN, J., On January 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) [53] in the above-captioned case recommending that I deny petitioner s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [33]. Petitioner filed Objections [58]. BACKGROUND 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 of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or 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, 1 OPINION AND ORDER 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 of the magistrate judge s F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). DISCUSSION Petitioner s nine objections to Magistrate Judge Hubel s findings are supported by arguments advanced in his Memorandum in Support of Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [31]. I have reviewed the briefing in this matter and the Exhibits to Answer [20] and find petitioner s arguments unpersuasive. CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [53] as my own opinion. Petitioner s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [33] is DENIED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15th day of May, 2012. /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.
