Beltran v. Jacquez
Filing
19
OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation 11 . Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is Denied. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 10/24/24 by Judge Amy M. Baggio. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 10/24/24.) (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
ANTHONY JOSEPH BELTRAN,
No. 3:23-cv-01888-JR
Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
WARDEN JACQUEZ,
Respondent.
BAGGIO, District Judge,
On August 13, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 11], recommending that this Court deny the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and enter a judgment of dismissal. Anthony Joseph Beltran (“Petitioner”)
objected [ECF 16] and Warden Israel Jacquez (“Respondent”) responded [ECF 18]. This Court
ADOPTS Judge Russo’s F&R [ECF 11].
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects, the court “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendation to which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court is not, however,
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
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. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). While
the level of scrutiny that the court applies to its F&R review depends on whether a party has filed
objections, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
The Court has carefully considered Petitioner’s objections and concludes that there is no
basis to modify the F&R. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo
and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s F&R.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [ECF 11]. Therefore,
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] is DENIED. The Court declines to issue
a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24th day of October, 2024.
DATED this ____
_______________________
AMY M. BAGGIO
United States District Judge
2 – OPINION AND 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?