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

RANDALL RAY MARTINO, Case No. 6:17-cv-00925-MK ORDER Petitioner,

vs.

CHRISTINE POPOFF, Superintendent, Oregon State Correctional Institution,

Respondent.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (doc. 54) recommending that petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) be dismissed with prejudice. This case is now before me. See

(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge’s report. See

(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1981), cert denied,

(1982). Petitioner has filed timely objections. (doc. 56) Thus, I review the F&R de novo.

Having considered the record and the arguments offered by petitioner, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s analysis. Therefore, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 54) in part. Thus, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) is DISMISSED, with prejudice. However, in considering petitioner’s objections, the Court grants the request for a certificate of appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). (If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may issue a certificate of

appealability if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”) IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this _2_7__th_ day of May, 2020.

____________/_s/_A_n__n_ A__i_k_e_n__________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge