Opinion
07-CV-544-PK.
March 11, 2011
MICHELLE A. RYAN, K2 Building, Portland, OR, Attorney for Petitioner.
JOHN R. KROGER, Attorney General, JACQUELINE SADKER KAMINS, KRISTEN E. BOYD, Assistant Attorneys General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Attorneys for Respondent.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#69) on February 14, 2011, in which he recommends the Court deny Petitioner Edmund Keith Bradshaw's Amended Petition (#37) for Writ of Habeas Corpus, dismiss this matter with prejudice, and deny a certificate of appealability. Petitioner filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc).
In his Objections Petitioner reiterates the arguments contained in his Memorandum in Support of [Amended] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Reply, and Sur-Reply. The Court has carefully considered Petitioner's arguments and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#69) and, therefore, DENIES the Amended Petition (#37) for Writ of Habeas Corpus and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 11th day of March, 2011.