Thomas v. Daniels

Full title: ROBERT DARRELL THOMAS, Petitioner, v. CHARLES DANIELS, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Dec 1, 2005

Civil No. 05-0015-TC (D. Or. Dec. 1, 2005)

Opinion

Civil No. 05-0015-TC.

December 1, 2005

ORDER

MICHAEL HOGAN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on October 17, 2005, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me 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 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Petitioner has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed October 17, 2005, in its entirety. Petitioner's petition (#2) is denied. This proceeding is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.