From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swinney v. Cain

United States District Court, District of Oregon
Nov 16, 2022
2:20-cv-00736-CL (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-00736-CL

11-16-2022

CRAIG ALAN SWINNEY, Petitioner, v. BRAD CAIN, Respondent.


ORDER

Michael McShane United States District Judge

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 40), and the matter is now before this Court on Petitioner's objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). I review de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct.

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 40) is adopted in full. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Swinney v. Cain

United States District Court, District of Oregon
Nov 16, 2022
2:20-cv-00736-CL (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2022)
Case details for

Swinney v. Cain

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG ALAN SWINNEY, Petitioner, v. BRAD CAIN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, District of Oregon

Date published: Nov 16, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-00736-CL (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2022)