Ames v. Morrow

Full title: JEFFREY HENRY AMES, Petitioner, v. MITCH MORROW, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 8, 2005

Civil No. 03-1119-HU (D. Or. Nov. 8, 2005)

Opinion

Civil No. 03-1119-HU.

November 8, 2005

Christine Stebbins Dahl, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Petitioner.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Lester R. Huntsinger, Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Attorneys for Respondent.

ORDER

GARR KING, District Judge

The Honorable Dennis Hubel, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on October 11, 2005. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a 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); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981),cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). The matter is before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Hubel. This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hubel dated October 11, 2005 in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's habeas corpus petition (#3) is denied.