Rickard v. Oregon Board of Parole and Probation, No. 6:2014cv01501 - Document 41 (D. Or. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivans recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 38 as my own opinion. Signed on 9/23/15 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
Rickard v. Oregon Board of Parole and Probation Doc. 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION WILLIAM GLEN RICKARD, No. 6:14-cv-01501-SU Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND PROBATION, Respondent. MOSMAN, J., On September 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [38], recommending that Petitioner William Glen Rickard’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] should be DENIED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. 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 the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 Sullivan’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [38] as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of September, 2015. /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.