From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Mills

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 28, 2011
Civ. No. 07-1637-AA (D. Or. Apr. 28, 2011)

Opinion

Civ. No. 07-1637-AA.

April 28, 2011


OPINION AND ORDER


Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation in the above-captioned case on March 7, 2011. Magistrate Judge Coffin recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and the case dismissed. Magistrate Judge Coffin found that petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted and that petitioner could not establish cause or prejudice. The matter is now before me. See 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). Petitioner timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Upon de novo review, I find no error and adopt the analysis contained in Magistrate Judge Coffin's opinion.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 73) filed March 7, 2011, is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 26 day of April, 2011.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Mills

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 28, 2011
Civ. No. 07-1637-AA (D. Or. Apr. 28, 2011)
Case details for

Taylor v. Mills

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. DON MILLS, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 28, 2011

Citations

Civ. No. 07-1637-AA (D. Or. Apr. 28, 2011)