Anthony v. Myrick

Filing 115

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke's F&R 99 and therefore petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is DENIED. A Certificate of Appealability is denied because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 3/11/2020 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Main Document 115 replaced on 3/11/2020) (cw).

JACOB ANTHONY,
vs.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00291-CL
OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Petitioner,

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PENDLETON DIVISION

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

AIKEN, District Judge:

United States Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke issued a Findings and

Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 99) on June 13, 2019, recommending that Petitioner

Jacob Anthony's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) be denied. Judge Clarke
further recommended petitioner be denied a Certificate of Appealability because
petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner timely filed objections (doc. 113) to the F&R
Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION

to which respondent responded (doc. 114). The matter is now before me pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When a party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's F&R, the district

court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l); 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 bane).

I have carefully considered petitioner's objections and conclude there is no

basis to modify the F&R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de
novo and find no errors in the F&R.

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke's F&R (doc. 99) and therefore

petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) is DENIED. A Certificate of
Appealability is denied 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.
-\-h
Dated this
day of March 2020.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

lt