From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Driver v. State

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jul 19, 2010
Civil No. 07-1344-TC (D. Or. Jul. 19, 2010)

Opinion

Civil No. 07-1344-TC.

July 19, 2010


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on June 28, 2010, in the above entitled case. 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 a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 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).

Petitioner has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed June 28, 2010, in its entirety. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (#1) is denied and the clerk of court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Driver v. State

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jul 19, 2010
Civil No. 07-1344-TC (D. Or. Jul. 19, 2010)
Case details for

Driver v. State

Case Details

Full title:PAUL LEE DRIVER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jul 19, 2010

Citations

Civil No. 07-1344-TC (D. Or. Jul. 19, 2010)