From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Laney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 19, 2014
No. 03:13-cv-00774-HU (D. Or. Nov. 19, 2014)

Opinion

No. 03:13-cv-00774-HU

11-19-2014

JAMES JOSEPH BROWN, Petitioner, v. GARRETT LANEY, Respondent.


ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings & Recommendation [24] on October 1, 2014, in which he recommends the Court deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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 & 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); 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).

I have carefully considered Petitioner's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings & Recommendation [24], and therefore, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 19 day of November, 2014.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Brown v. Laney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 19, 2014
No. 03:13-cv-00774-HU (D. Or. Nov. 19, 2014)
Case details for

Brown v. Laney

Case Details

Full title:JAMES JOSEPH BROWN, Petitioner, v. GARRETT LANEY, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Nov 19, 2014

Citations

No. 03:13-cv-00774-HU (D. Or. Nov. 19, 2014)