Houff v. Laney ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION WAYNE HOUFF, Case No. 6:17-cv-01767-CL OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, v8. 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. 83) 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(e)\(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 US.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 novo determination of that portion of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.8d 930, 982 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 Oth Civ. 2003) (en banc). 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 novo 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). ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated this, day of July 2019. (bess tar Ann Aiken United States District Judge Page 2— OPINION AND ORDER