Russell v. Oregon Attorney General, No. 3:2014cv00287 - Document 50 (D. Or. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation 46 . Petitioner's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus(2254) 19 is DENIED. Signed on 11/3/15 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (jlr) Modified on 11/4/2015 to correct file date(jlr).

Download PDF
Russell v. Oregon Attorney General Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION DONALD L. RUSSELL, No. 3:14-cv-00287-ST Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. SUPERVISOR ANDREW ALTMAN and STATE OF OREGON, Respondents. MOSMAN,J., On September 30, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation [46], recommending that Petitioner Donald Russell's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [19] be DENIED. Judge Stewart also recommended that the court should decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner objected [48], Respondent State of Oregon responded [49]. 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 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com is not required to review, de novo or under 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, 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)(l)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [46] as my own opm1on. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this?c9 day 2015. MICHAEL W. OSMAN United · trict 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.