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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?