Leech v. Kelly, No. 6:2019cv01769 - Document 34 (D. Or. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. 30 as my own opinion. I DISMISS the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 12 with prejudice. I decline to issue 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 6/1/2021 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dsg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Leech v. Kelly Doc. 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION STEVEN CURTIS LEECH, Petitioner, No. 6: 19-cv-01769-SB V. OPINION AND ORDER BRANDON KELLY, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. MOSMAN,J., On April 9, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 30]. Judge Beckerman recommended that I dismiss the Amended Petition for Writ ofBabeas Corpus [ECF 12] and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner Steven Curtis Leech filed timely objections. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman. 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 30] as my own opinion. I DISMISS the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 12] with prejudice. I decline to issue 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. <,-t- ((v~ DATED this+ day o ~ , 2021. United States 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.
