Boone v. Myrick

Filing 50

OPINION AND ORDER: I agree with Judge Coffin's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R 46 as my own opinion. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Mr. Boone's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 is DENIED and is thus DISMISSED, and a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Signed on 10/10/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)

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

CHARLES P. BOONE,
No. 2:14-cv-01645-TC
Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.

JOHN MYRICK, Superintendent,
Two Rivers Correctional Inst.,
Respondent.

MOSMAN,J.,
On May 31, 2017, Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin issued his Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") [46], recommending that Charles P. Boone's Amended Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus [20] should be DENIED and that a Certificate of Appealability should be
DENIED. Petitioner did not object.

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)(l)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

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 pmt of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C).
I agree with Judge Coffin's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [46] as my own
opinion. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Mr. Boone's Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [20] is DENIED and is thus DISMISSED, and a Certificate of Appealability is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

lO dayofOctober,2017.

2 - OPINION AND ORDER