From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Estacio v. Hill

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 23, 2008
Civil No. 06-6226-AC (D. Or. Jun. 23, 2008)

Opinion

Civil No. 06-6226-AC.

June 23, 2008


ORDER


Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta filed Findings and Recommendation (#36) on May 8, 2008, 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 Acosta's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#36) dated May 8, 2008, in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) and petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing are denied and this case is dismissed. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Estacio v. Hill

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 23, 2008
Civil No. 06-6226-AC (D. Or. Jun. 23, 2008)
Case details for

Estacio v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:FEDERICO DE JESUS ESTACIO, JR., Petitioner, v. JEAN HILL, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jun 23, 2008

Citations

Civil No. 06-6226-AC (D. Or. Jun. 23, 2008)

Citing Cases

Mejia v. Nooth

A presumption of prejudice has "specifically and explicitly" been "limited to joint representation[;]" the…