Martino v. Popoff

Filing 57

ORDER: Having considered the record and the arguments offered by petitioner, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's analysis. Therefore, the Court adopts the F&R 54 in part. Thus, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Cor pus 2 is DISMISSED, with prejudice. However, in considering petitioner's objections, the Court grants the request for a certificate of appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). (If a court denies a habeas p etition, the court may issue a certificate of appealability if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of [the petitioner's] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.) Signed on 5/27/2020 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Case 6:17-cv-00925-MK

Document 57

Filed 05/27/20

Page 1 of 2

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

RANDALL RAY MARTINO,

Case No. 6:17-cv-00925-MK
ORDER

Petitioner,
vs.
CHRISTINE POPOFF, Superintendent,
Oregon State Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendations
(“F&R”) (doc. 54) recommending that petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(doc. 2) be dismissed with prejudice. This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the
district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate
judge’s report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
PAGE 1 – ORDER

Case 6:17-cv-00925-MK

Document 57

Filed 05/27/20

Page 2 of 2

Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S.
920 (1982). Petitioner has filed timely objections. (doc. 56) Thus, I review the F&R
de novo.
Having considered the record and the arguments offered by petitioner, the
Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s analysis. Therefore, the Court
adopts the F&R (doc. 54) in part. Thus, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(doc. 2) is DISMISSED, with prejudice.
However, in considering petitioner’s objections, the Court grants the
request for a certificate of appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
327 (2003). (If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may issue a certificate of
appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude
the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27th
Dated this _____ day of May, 2020.

/s/Ann Aiken
_________________________________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER