Buckman v. Hall

Filing 58

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 54 as my own opinion, 55 . Signed on 5/25/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOHN R. BUCKMAN, No. CV 07-141-HU Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. GUY HALL, Respondent. MOSMAN, J., On April 29, 2009, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#54) in the above-captioned case recommending that I DENY plaintiff's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#26) as to grounds for relief A(2), A(3), A(4), B(1), and B(2) and ORDER FURTHER BRIEFING as to grounds for relief A(1) and A(5). Plaintiff filed objections (#55). 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 of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474

PAGE 1 - OPINION & ORDER

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 of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#54) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 25 day of May, 2009. /s/ Michael W Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

PAGE 2 - OPINION & ORDER