Yegge v. Hall

Full title: THOMAS J. YEGGE JR., Petitioner, v. GUY HALL, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Dec 27, 2010

Civ. No. 10-524-CL (D. Or. Dec. 27, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. 10-524-CL.

December 27, 2010

ORDER

OWEN PANNER, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation. I have, therefore, given this matter de novo review. I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#21) is adopted. The petition (#2) is denied. Petitioner's motion regarding obstruction of justice (#25) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23 day of December, 2010.