O'Dell v. Myers

Full title: ROBERT EARL O'DELL, Petitioner, v. PAULA MYERS, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon, Division

Date published: Mar 14, 2011

No. CV-09-245-ST (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV-09-245-ST.

March 14, 2011

Tonia L. Moro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Petitioner.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Andrew Hallman, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants.

ORDER

MARCO HERNANDEZ, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#40) on January 31, 2011, in which she recommends I deny the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#13) and enter a judgment dismissing this case with prejudice. She also recommends I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Petitioner timely filed objections to the Findings and 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 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); 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 the objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#40). Accordingly, I deny petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#13) and enter a judgment dismissing this case with prejudice. I also decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 11^th day of March, 2011.