Perez v. Kilmer et al
Filing
61
ORDER: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation 57 . Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 is denied. See 2-page order attached. Signed on 12/13/2013 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MICHAEL RAMON PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
GARY KILMER,
Respondent.
C. Renee Manes
Federal Public Defender
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, OR 97204
Attorney for Petitioner
Nicholas M. Kallstrom
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Attorney for Respondent
///
1 - ORDER
No. 3:11-cv-00127-ST
ORDER
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#57) on October 29,
2013, in which she recommends that the Court should deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus
(#1). Petitioner timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now
before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
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).
I have carefully considered Petitioner’s objections and conclude that the objections do not
provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the
record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Findings and Recommendation (#57).
Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
day of December, 2013.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
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?