Odoms v. Kelly

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

DONALD ODOMS,

Petitioner, No. 6:18-cv-00125-AC

BRANDON KELLY, Superintendent OPINTON AND ORDER Oregon State Penitentiary; and OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, ' Respondents. .

MOSMAN, J 5 On September 2, 2020, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 53]. Judge Acosta recommended that I deny Mr. Donald Odoms’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Mr. Odoms filed objections [ECF 55] and Respondents filed a response [ECF 56]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta and DISMISS this case with prejudice. 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 1 —OPINION AND ORDER

make a de novo determination regarding 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, de novo or under 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 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 part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 53] as my own opinion. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. ‘ITIS SO ORDERED. DATED this “SC day of November, 2020.

MICHAEL W, MDSMAN United States District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER