Thomasson v. Palmer
ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation 58 and, therefore, DENIES the Petition 1 for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, DISMISSES this matter with prejudice, and DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. (See attached 2-page Order). Signed on 2/10/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pg) Modified on 2/13/2017 (pg).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DON PALMER and
Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and
Recommendation (#58) on November 21, 2016, in which she
recommends the Court deny Petitioner Jeremiah Thomasson's
Petition (#1) for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2254, dismiss this matter with prejudice, and decline to issue
a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner filed timely
Objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
The matter is now
before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
1 - ORDER
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Reconunendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1).
See also 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 bane).
This Court has carefully considered Petitioner's Objections
and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings
The Court also has reviewed the pertinent
portions of the record de nova and does not find any error in the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Reconunendation.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and
Reconunendation (#58) and, therefore, DENIES the Petition (#1) for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, DISMISSES
this matter with prejudice, and DECLINES to issue a certificate
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of February, 2017.
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?