Hatfield v. Anglzzi et al

Filing 17

ORDER - Adopting Findings and Recommendation 11 . Signed on 5/7/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

TIMOTHYM.HATFIELD,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
RICK ANGELOZZI, JOE DECAMP,
)
STATE OF OREGON, ALL AGENTS, )
KLAMATH COUNTY CORRECTIONS,)
OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL,
)
KIKI PARKER-ROSE, ED CALAB, and )

MARK NOOTH,
Respondents.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00436-SU

ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

)
)
)
)

SIMON, District Judge.
On March 23,2012, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan filed Findings and
Recommendations (Dkt. 11) in this case. Judge Sullivan recommended dismissing all
respondents to this action with the exception of Rick Angelozzi, who is the petitioner's
custodian. She also recommended denying petition's pending Motion to Grant Relief (Dkt. 4) as
unnecessary and improperly based upon state law.

Petitioner timely filed objections (Dkt. 15), as well as an amended Motion to Grant Relief
(Dkt. 16). Petitioner's objections relate to the merits of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Dkt. #3). The court has not yet considered the merits of his Petition, however. Judge Sullivan
has recommended denying petitioner's Motion to Grant Relief because it is redundant with his
initial Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court will shortly issue a briefmg schedule for the
Petition (see Dkt. 11), which will provide petitioner with the opportunity to submit his arguments
on the merits of his Petition.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the court may "accept, reject or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." Federal Magistrates Act, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate's findings and recommendations,
"the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed fmdings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);
Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930,932 (9th Cir. 2009). De novo review means that the court
"considers the matter anew, as if no decision had been rendered." Dawson, 561 F.3d at 933.
After de novo review, I ADOPT Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendations (Dkt.
11) for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, the court dismisses all respondents to this action
with the exception of Rick Angelozzi. The court also DENIES petitioner's Motion to Grant
Relief (Dkt. #4). For the same reasons, the court DENIES petitioner's Amended Motion to Grant
Relief.
Dated this 7th day of May, 2012.

United States District Judge
OPINION & ORDER, Page 2