Saner v. Taylor

Filing 37

Opinion and Order: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 33 ] as my own opinion. I DENY Mr. Saner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1 ] and decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1st day of February, 2021, by United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pjg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

MATTHEW SEAN SANER,
Petitioner,
No. 3:17-cv-00991-AC

V.

JERI TAYLOR, Superintendent, Eastern
Oregon Correctional Institution,

OPINION AND ORDER

Respondent.

MOSMAN,J.,
On November 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 33]. Judge Acosta recommended that I deny the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner
Matthew Sean Saner filed objections. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta and DISMISS this
case with prejudice.
DISCUSSION
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 regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

is not required to review, de novo or under 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, 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 part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C).

CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's findings and recommendation, and I ADOPT
the F. & R. [ECF 33] as my own opinion. I DENY Mr. Saner's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [ECF 1] and decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ac;r

DATED this _ _
.J,..~y of February, 2021.

United States District Judge

2 - OPINION AND ORDER