Fuller v. Hill

Full title: GARY D. FULLER, Petitioner, v. JEAN HILL, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Sep 11, 2007

Civ. No. 05-506-TC (D. Or. Sep. 11, 2007)

Opinion

Civ. No. 05-506-TC.

September 11, 2007

ORDER

ANN AIKEN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on July 27, 2007. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Petitioner has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 32) that petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) is denied and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.