Houff v. Laney

Filing 39

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke's F&R 33 and therefore petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED. A Certificate of Appealability is denied because 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 7/26/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 7/26/2019.) (ck)

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

vVAYNE HOUFF,

Case No. 6:17-cv-01767-CL
OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner,
vs.
GARRETT LANEY, Superintendent,
Oregon State Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

AIKEN, District Judge:
United States Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke issued a Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 33) on May 14, 2019, recommending that Petitioner
Wayne Houffs Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) be denied. Judge Clarke
further recommended petitioner be denied a Certificate of Appealability because
petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner timely filed objections (doc. 37) to the F&R

Page 1- OPINION AND ORDER

to which respondent responded (doc. 38). The matter is now before me pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When a party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's F &R, the district
court must make a de nova determination of that portion of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l); 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).
I have carefully considered petitioner's objections and conclude there is no
basis to modify the F &R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de

nova and find no errors in the F&R.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke's F&R (doc. 33) and therefore
petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) is DENIED. A Certificate of
Appealability is denied because 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.
Dated t h i ~ day of July 2019.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2- OPINION AND ORDER