Summary
finding due process requirements met where "Petitioner cites no evidence suggesting that the hearings officer had personal knowledge of petitioner's escape or was otherwise biased against petitioner."
Summary of this case from Williams v. FarleyOpinion
Case No. 3:18-cv-00609-MK
10-24-2018
RICHARD STRAWDERMAN, Petitioner, v. RICHARD IVES. Respondent.
ORDER
:
Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo has filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 10) recommending that respondent's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8) should be GRANTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to U.S.C. § 2241 (doc. 2) should be Dismissed. Magistrate Judge Russo also recommended that, alternatively, the petition should be denied on the merits. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
No objections have been timely filed. Although this relieves me of my obligation to perform a de novo review, I retain the obligation to "make an informed, final decision." Briti v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Magistrates Act does not specify a standard of review in cases where no objections are filed. Ray v. Astrue, 2012 WL 1598239, *1 (D. Or. May 7, 2012). Following the recommendation of the Rules Advisory Committee, I review the F&R for "clear error on the face of the record[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (1983) (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (stating that, "[i]n the absence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes provide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a federal rule). Both parties have filed timely objections to the F&R (docs. 68 and 69) as well as timely responses to those objections (docs. 70 and 71). Having reviewed the file of this case and Magistrate Judge Russo's F&R, I find no clear error.
Thus, I adopt Magistrate Judge Russo's F&R (doc. 10) in its entirety. Accordingly, respondent's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8) is GRANTED. This Petition is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24 day of October, 2018.
/s/_________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge