Templeton v. Hill

Full title: ADRIAN JUSTICE TEMPLETON, Petitioner, v. JEAN HILL, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jan 10, 2006

Civil No. 02-1564-ST (D. Or. Jan. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 02-1564-ST.

January 10, 2006

Donnal S. Mixon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Medford, Oregon, Attorney for Petitioner.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Carolyn Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Attorneys for Respondent.

ORDER

GARR KING, District Judge

The Honorable Janice Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on December 13, 2005. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). The matter is before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Stewart. This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stewart dated December 13, 2005 in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is denied.