From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hattrick v. Daniels

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 21, 2008
Civil No. 07-3082-TC (D. Or. Apr. 21, 2008)

Opinion

Civil No. 07-3082-TC.

April 21, 2008


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on March 12, 2008, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Petitioner has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed March 12, 2008, in its entirety. Petitioner's petition (#1) is denied on the ground that it fails to state a claim cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This proceeding is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hattrick v. Daniels

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 21, 2008
Civil No. 07-3082-TC (D. Or. Apr. 21, 2008)
Case details for

Hattrick v. Daniels

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE HATTRICK, Petitioner, v. CHARLES DANIELS, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 21, 2008

Citations

Civil No. 07-3082-TC (D. Or. Apr. 21, 2008)

Citing Cases

SASS v. THOMAS

See Berry v. Sanders, 2009 WL 789890, *5 (C.D.Cal. March 20, 2009) (the BOP may exercise its discretion under…

Calloway v. Thomas

See Berry v. Sanders, 2009 WL 789890, *5 (C.D.Cal. March 20, 2009) (stating thatpost-Rodriguez, the BOP may…