Sprague v. State

Full title: JAMES VERNON SPRAGUE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 16, 2007

Civ. No. 06-1277-TC (D. Or. Apr. 16, 2007)

Opinion

Civ. No. 06-1277-TC.

April 16, 2007

ORDER

MICHAEL HOGAN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on December 12, 2006, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before the court 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 (9^th Cir. 1981),cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Petitioner timely filed objections. The court has, therefore, given de novo review of Judge Coffin's rulings.

The court adopts the Findings and Recommendation filed December 12, 2006 [#19] in its entirety. The petition for writ of habeas corpus [#1] is denied. This proceeding is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.