Marvin Randall v. Erin Reyes

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARVIN RANDALL, Case No. 2:23-cv-01826-SB

Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v.

ERIN REYES,

Respondent.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On January 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 77. The F&R recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF 14, deny any pending motions as moot, and deny a certificate of appealability. Petitioner timely filed objections to the F&R, ECF 80, on February 10, 2026, and Respondent filed a response, ECF 81. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Petitioner objected and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s F&R in full. Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no

objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. This Court liberally construes Petitioner’s objections as he is proceeding pro se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Beckerman’s F&R to which Petitioner objected. Judge Beckerman’s F&R, ECF 77, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF 14, DENIES any pending motions as moot, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 26th day of February, 2026.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge