November 22, 2013
MATTHEW DUSKIN, Petitioner,
JEFF PREMO, Respondent.
Matthew Duskin Beaverton, OR, Petitioner, Pro Se.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Kristen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Attorneys for Respondent.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation (#81) on February 28 2013, in which she recommends that the Court should deny Petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing (#69) and amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (#36). Petitioner timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall , 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
I have carefully considered Petitioner's objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation (#81). Therefore, Petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing (#69) and amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (#36) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.