From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MINH v. HALL

United States District Court, D. Oregon
May 3, 2010
Civil No. 07-465-TC (D. Or. May. 3, 2010)

Opinion

Civil No. 07-465-TC.

May 3, 2010


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on March 25, 2010, 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 25, 2010, in its entirety. Petitioner's habeas claim is denied and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

MINH v. HALL

United States District Court, D. Oregon
May 3, 2010
Civil No. 07-465-TC (D. Or. May. 3, 2010)
Case details for

MINH v. HALL

Case Details

Full title:TRAN DANG MINH, Petitioner, v. GUY HALL, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: May 3, 2010

Citations

Civil No. 07-465-TC (D. Or. May. 3, 2010)