Matecki v. Amsberry ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JOHN JAY MATECKI, III, No. 2:18-cv-00461-YY Petitioner, ORDER v. BRIGITTE AMSBERRY, Respondent. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation on March 24, 2021, in which she recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [23]. F&R, ECF No. 66. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Petitioner filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. Pet’r’s Obj., ECF No. 70. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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 banc). The Court has carefully considered Petitioner’s objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation No. 66. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [23] is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: ____J_u_n__e_ 2_2_,_ _2_0_2_1_______. ___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge