Richmond v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 20

ORDER: Adopting Report and Recommendation 16 ; Granting Motion to Dismiss 13 ; Denying Amended Petition 8 . Ordered & Signed on 6/21/12 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARSHALL RICHMOND,

No. 3:11-cv-1355-CL
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERY THOMAS,

ORDER

Respondent.

PANNER, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and
Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court.
U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

See 28

When either party

objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination
of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report.

28 U.S.C. §

636 (b) (1) (C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.,
Inc.,

656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation, so

1 -

ORDER

ewed this matter de novo.

I have
Judge Cla

I agree with Magistrate

that the amended petition fails on

the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply ret

,

646 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th

curiam) ,

132 S. Ct. 1053 (2012) .

s merits because
y.

r. 2011)

United
(per

Accordingly, I

ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.
CONCLUSION
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#16) is
adopted.

Respondent's motion to dismiss

amended pet

(#13) is granted.

(#8) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

~ day of June, 2012.

OWEN M. PANNER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2 - ORDER

The