Opinion
Civil No. 09-206-HU.
September 16, 2010
C. Renee Manes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Petitioner.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Jonathan W. Diehl, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Attorneys for Respondent.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel filed his Amended Findings and Recommendation on August 6, 2010. 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 the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report.See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 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 filed timely objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Amended Findings and Recommendation #22 of Magistrate Judge Hubel. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1) is DENIED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16 day of September, 2010