United States District Court, D. Oregon
February 19, 2014
IVAR VOITS, Petitioner,
N. NOOTH, Superintendent, SRCI, Respondent.
Bryan E. Lessley, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Eugene, OR, Attorney for Petitioner.
Kristen E. Boyd, STATE OF OREGON Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Attorney for Respondent.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R")  on October 8, 2013, recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus  be denied and that a certificate of appealability be denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's F&R. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's F&R, as here, 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 Plaintiff's objections and conclude that these objections do not provide a basis to modify the F&R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's F&R.
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's F&R . Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus  is DENIED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED because the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
IT IS SO ORDERED.