Barrow
v.
Premo

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISIONJul 19, 2013
No. 6:11-cv-06383-HU (D. Or. Jul. 19, 2013)

No. 6:11-cv-06383-HU

07-19-2013

MYELZAC ALEXTON BARROW, Petitioner, v. J. PREMO, Respondent.


OPINION AND ORDER

MOSMAN, J.,

On June 28, 2013, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [35] in the above-captioned case, recommending (1) that I deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1], (2) that I deny petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing, and (3) that I decline to issue a certificate of appealability. No objections were filed.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [35] as my own opinion. I decline to issue a certificate of appealability because petitioner has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________


MICHAEL W. MOSMAN


United States District Judge