Corona-Cuevas v. Hall

Full title: ROGELIO CORONA-CUEVAS, Petitioner, v. GUY HALL, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jul 16, 2008

CV 06-743-ST (D. Or. Jul. 16, 2008)

Opinion

CV 06-743-ST.

July 16, 2008

ANTHONY D. BORNSTEIN, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR.

Attorney for Petitioner.

HARDY MEYERS, Attorney General, JONATHAN W. DIEHL, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, OR.

Attorneys for Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

MALCOLM MARSH, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Stewart filed her Findings and Recommendation on June 10, 2008. 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 filed timely objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. I do not find any error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation (#39) of Magistrate Judge Stewart.

IT IS SO ORDERED.