Newcomb v. Belleque
Filing
60
OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubels recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 53 as my own opinion. Petitioners Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 33 is DENIED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed on 5/15/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
SHAWN M. NEWCOMB,
Petitioner,
No. 3:09-cv-00936-HU
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
BRIAN BELLEQUE,
Respondent.
MOSMAN, J.,
On January 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) [53] in the above-captioned case recommending that I deny petitioner’s Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [33]. Petitioner filed Objections [58].
BACKGROUND
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,
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
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 of the
magistrate judge’s F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner’s nine objections to Magistrate Judge Hubel’s findings are supported by
arguments advanced in his Memorandum in Support of Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [31]. I have reviewed the briefing in this matter and the Exhibits to Answer [20] and find
petitioner’s arguments unpersuasive.
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [53] as
my own opinion. Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [33] is DENIED, and
this proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
15th
day of May, 2012.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman______
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge
2 – OPINION AND 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?