IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MICHAEL ORTEGA, No. 2:18-cv-02050-SB

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

BRIGITTE AMSBERRY, Superintendent,

Respondent.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation [22] on November 5, 2019, in which she recommends the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [17]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report.

(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall,

(9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court has carefully considered Petitioner’s objections and concludes that the

objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation [22]. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [17] and dismisses this proceeding, without prejudice. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________A_p_r_il_ 1_,_ 2__0_2_0_______________.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge