Knox v. Popoff, No. 6:2017cv00104 - Document 50 (D. Or. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 42 . Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is Dismissed. Petitioner's Motion to Amend/Supplement Facts of Petition 37 , Amended Motion for Summary Judgment 39 , and Motion for Immediate Release 40 are Denied as Moot. Petitioner's Motion to Determine Question of Law [ 48] is accordingly Denied. I further decline to enter a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 6/20/18 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Knox v. Popoff Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION STEVEN KNOX, No. 6:17-cv-104-PK Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. CHRISTINA POPOFF, Respondent. MOSMAN,J., On March 14, 2018 Magistrate Judge Paul Papale issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [42], recommending that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] should be dismissed; that Petitioner's Motion to Amend/Supplement Facts of Petition [37], Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [39], and Motion for Immediate Release [40] should be denied as moot; that a judgment of dismissal should be entered; and that I should certify that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner filed a Motion to Determine Question of Law [48], which I construe as an objection to the F&R, as well as Objections [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, 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo dete1mination 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 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 Papak's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R in full. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] is DISMISSED. Petitioner's Motion to Amend/Supplement Facts of Petition [37], Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [39], and Motion for Immediate Release [40] are DENIED as moot. Petitioner's Motion to Determine Question of Law [48] is accordingly DENIED. I further decline to enter a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ZOday of June, 2018. [\, ; ' (\ I Jl , :/ \}J\j Ii \; \sdJ( \(\; '(:>.. MICHAEL W. MOSlµAN { Chief United Statesbistrict 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.
