Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bell v. Persson

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division

June 19, 2014

WILLIAM BELL, Petitioner,
v.
ROB PERSSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Correctional Institution, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.

On April 1, 2014, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [30] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be DENIED. Objections [32] were filed and a response [33] was received.

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). 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 Stewart's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [30] as my own opinion. Because petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is granted as to the following issues: whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate Petitioner's case, causing Petitioner to enter a guilty plea that was not knowing and voluntary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.