Kyte v. Persson, No. 3:2018cv00649 - Document 63 (D. Or. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R (ECF 52 ) as my own opinion. Ms. Kyte's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 34 ) is DENIED and I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 10/29/2020 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kyte v. Persson Case 3:18-cv-00649-SB Document 63 Filed 10/29/20 Doc. 63 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION MEGAN ELIZABETH KYTE, Petitioner, No. 3: 18-cv-00649-SB V. I OPINION AND ORDER ROB PERSSON, Respondent. MOSMAN,J., On July 27, 2020, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [ECF 52]. Judge Beckerman recommended that I DENY Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 34] and decline to issue a Certificate of i Appealability. Petitioner Megan Elizabeth Kyte filed objections [ECF 61] and Respondent Rob I Persson filed a response [ECF 62]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman and DISM SS this case with prejudice. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 1 I file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, I but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to I I make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or I 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:18-cv-00649-SB Document 63 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 2 recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court is not ~equired to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the mL istrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See I Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S . 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 I I (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R I I depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or mo1ify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 52] as my own opinion. Ms. Kyte's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 34] I is DENIED and I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. The case is DISMISSED with I i prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 2---1 day of October, 2020. 2 - Ol INION 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.
