Rodriguez-Moreno v. Oregon

Full title: JUAN RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jan 5, 2012

Civ. No. 08-493-TC (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2012)

Opinion

Civ. No. 08-493-TC

01-05-2012

JUAN RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent.

Ann Aiken

ORDER

AIKEN, Chief Judge:

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on November 15, 2011. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When a party, objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Petitioner has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 53) and deny petitioner's Petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismiss this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________

Ann Aiken

United States District Judge