McCoin v. Fickle

Filing 37

ORDER: Adopting Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation 32 . The petition is dismissed. (Please access document by number hyperlink for complete review and details of order.) Signed on 5/28/2009 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

FIl£D'09 t11Y 2812:3'MOC«l1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CARRIE J . HALE McCOIN, C i v . No. 0 7 - l 1 7 1 - C L Petitioner, v. MARVIN FICKLE, Respondent.
PANNER, D i s t r i c t J u d g e :
ORDER

M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e M a r k D. C l a r k e f i l e d a R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , a n d t h e m a t t e r i s now b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t . U.S.C.
§

S e e 28

6 3 6 ( b ) (1) ( B ) , F e d . R. C i v . P . 7 2 ( b ) .

Petitioner has

filed objections. 28 U . S . C .
Bus~

I h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e f i l e o f t h i s c a s e d e DQYQ.
(C)i

§

6 3 6 ( b ) (1)

M c D o n n e l l D o u g l a s C o r p . v . Commodore

Mach., I n c . , 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th C i r . 1981). I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that petitioner has not

shown t h a t h e r t r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e .

Counsel's decision

n o t t o c a l l Gus W i l l e m i n a s a w i t n e s s w a s r e a s o n a b l e b e c a u s e W i l l e m i n ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t p e t i t i o n e r ' s i n j u r i e s was c u m u l a t i v e .

1 - ORDER

In h e r o b j e c t i o n s , p e t i t i o n e r n o t e s t h a t t h e R e p o r t a n d Recommendation states that "the claims for inadequate assistance of counsel . . . f a i l , " which i s the Oregon standard for evaluating a criminal defense counsel's performance. (emphasis added). R&R a t 1 3

The federal standard requires a showing of See Strickland v. Washington,

ineffective assistance of counsel. 466

u.s.

668 (1984).

I see no indication t h a t the Report and Recommendation failed to apply applicable federal law. Even i f the Report and

Recommendation did apply the Oregon standard, the result would not change under the federal standard because there i s no meaningful difference between "inadequate" and "ineffective." See State v. Davis, 345 Or. 551, 579, 201 P.3d 185, 202 (2008) (implying t h a t the two standards are interchangeable); cf. State v. Smith, 339 Or. 515, 526, 123 P.3d 261, 268 (2005) (describing

"adequate" as "the more accurate word adopted by t h i s court"). I find no error in the Report and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#32) i s adopted. The p e t i t i o n i s dismissed.

I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s

2 - ORDER