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)

Download PDF
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?