Hale v. Franke, No. 3:2011cv00811 - Document 40 (D. Or. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Clarkes recommendation, and I ADOPT the R&R 37 as my own opinion. I deny petitioners request for a certificate of appealability because he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 6/28/13 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION RAYMOND HENRY HALE, No. 3:11-cv-00811-CL Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. STEVE FRANKE, Respondent. MOSMAN, J., On May 23, 2013, Magistrate Judge Clarke issued his Report and Recommendation ( R&R ) [37] in the above-captioned case, recommending that I deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [3] and that I decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner filed objections [39] to which respondent did not respond. 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)(1)(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 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 Clarke s recommendation, and I ADOPT the R&R [37] as my own opinion. I deny petitioner s request for a certificate of appealability because he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 28th day of June, 2013. /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.