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

MEGAN ELIZABETH KYTE, Petitioner, No. 3:1 ror tnng . 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 Appealability. Petitioner Megan Elizabeth Kyte filed objections [ECF 61] and Respondent Rob Persson filed a response [ECF 62]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman 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 make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or

1 —OPINION AND ORDER

recommendation as to which an objection is made.

(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,

(1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(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.

(b)(1)(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] is DENIED and I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. _ITIS SO ORDERED. DATED this 2“_ day of October, 2020.

| United States District Judge

2- OPINION AND ORDER