From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortega-Espinoza v. Blacketter

United States District Court, D. Oregon
May 4, 2006
Case No. 04-526-JE (D. Or. May. 4, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 04-526-JE.

May 4, 2006

Anthony D. Bornstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Petitioner.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Lynn David Larsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Attorneys for Respondent.


ORDER


The Honorable John Jelderks, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on March 2, 2006. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Petitioner has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Respondent has not filed a response.

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).

Having given a de novo review of the issues raised in petitioner's objections to the Findings and Recommendation, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Jelderks' Findings and Recommendation (#42) and DENY the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2). Judgment will be entered dismissing this case with prejudice.


Summaries of

Ortega-Espinoza v. Blacketter

United States District Court, D. Oregon
May 4, 2006
Case No. 04-526-JE (D. Or. May. 4, 2006)
Case details for

Ortega-Espinoza v. Blacketter

Case Details

Full title:CLISANTOS ORTEGA-ESPINOZA, Petitioner, v. SHARON BLACKETTER, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: May 4, 2006

Citations

Case No. 04-526-JE (D. Or. May. 4, 2006)