Regalado v. Premo

Filing 49

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 42 as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 11/21/2016 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRlCT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

JOSE ALFREDO REGALADO,
No. 6:14-cv-01568-SB
Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.

JEFF PREMO,
Respondent.

MOSMAN,J.,
On August 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued her Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") [42], recommending that the Court deny Mr. Regalado's Habeas
Petition [1]. Mr. Regalado objected [47] and Mr. Premo responded [48]. Upon careful review, I
agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [42] as my own.

DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The coutt 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
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

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).
Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the
F&R [42] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

A

day of November, 2016.

MI~

Chief United States District Judge

2 - OPINION AND ORDER