United States District Court, D. Oregon
MICHAEL J. McSHANE, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 13), and Petitioner filed timely Objections to Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 15). The matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.
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)(l). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) ( en banc ); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir.1988).
In his objections, Petitioner reiterates the arguments from his initial Petition for Relief. (ECF No. 1). This Court carefully reviewed Petitioner's objections and concludes that they do not provide a basis to reject or modify the Findings and Recommendations. This Court also reviewed the record de novo, and I find no error and conclude it is correct.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Section U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Relief (ECF No. 1) is dismissed ...