Roberts v. Hall, No. 3:2007cv00539 - Document 44 (D. Or. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendations, and I ADOPT the F&R 40 as my own opinion. I therefore DENY Mr. Roberts's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2), DISMISS this case, and DENY a Certificate of Appealability. Signed on 6/8/2010 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JOSHUA ROBERTS, No. CV 07-539-AC Petitioner, OPINION & ORDER v. GUY HALL, Respondent. MOSMAN, J., On April 16, 2010, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued Amended Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#40) in the above-captioned case recommending that I DENY Mr. Roberts's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2), DISMISS this case, and DENY a Certificate of Appealability. Mr. Roberts filed objections (#42) to the F&R. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendations, and I ADOPT the F&R (#40) as my own opinion. I therefore DENY Mr. Roberts's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2), DISMISS this case, and DENY a Certificate of Appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th day of June, 2010. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.