Pravorne v. Hendrix, No. 3:2021cv00898 - Document 8 (D. Or. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendations, I ADOPT his F. & R. [ECF 6] as my own opinion. I dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1], decline to issue a certificate of appealability becaus e Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and dismiss this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 4th day of March, 2022, by Senior United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman.(Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 3/4/2022.) (pjg)

Download PDF
Pravorne v. Hendrix Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION BRIAN K. PRAVORNE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00898-AC Petitioner, V. OPINION AND ORDER DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Respondent. MOSMAN,J., On February 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F. & R.") [ECF 6]. Judge Acosta recommends I deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and enter a judgment of dismissal. Objections were due on February 22, 2022, but none were filed. I agree with Judge Acosta. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 nova 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 is not required to review, de nova or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendations, I ADOPT his F. & R. [ECF 6] as my own opinion. I dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1], decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and dismiss this case. IT IS SO ORDERED . . -fi>-· DATED this !j_:_·aay of March, 2022. 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.