United States District Court, D. Oregon
April 5, 2015
JAMES IVY DAVIS, Petitioner,
MR. NOOTH, MARCK, Mr. Superintendent Nooth, Respondent.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#75) on February 17, 2015, in which she recommends the Court deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
Petitioner has timely filed objections to the Findings & 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 & 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 there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation , and therefore, Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus  is denied and no Certificate of Appealability shall issue because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.