Barger v. Nooth

Filing 44

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation 38 , and therefore, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 10/24/17 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (dsg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BARRY LOWELL BARGER,
Petitioner,

v.

MARK NOOTH,
Respondent.
Anthony D. Bornstein
Assistant Federal Public Defender
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, Oregon 97204
Attorney for Petitioner
Frederick M. Boss
Deputy Attorney General
Nick M. Kallstrom
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Attorneys for Respondent
1 – ORDER

No. 2:16-CV-01314-PK
ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings & Recommendation [38] on July 19,
2017, recommending that Petitioner Barger’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] be denied.
Petitioner has timely filed objections [43] to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now
before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When a 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).
The Court has carefully considered Petitioner’s objections and concludes there is no basis
to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions
of the record de novo and finds no errors in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings & Recommendation [38], and
therefore, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] is denied and this case is dismissed
with prejudice. Additionally, the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability 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.
DATED this _______ day of ____________________, 2017.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
2 – ORDER