Middleton v. Laney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KENNETH EUGENE MIDDLETON, JR., Case No. 6:19-cv-00027-CL ORDER Petitioner, vs.

GARRETT LANEY,

Respondent.

AIKEN, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (Doc. 37) recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 2) be denied. Magistrate Judge Clarke has also recommended that this case be dismissed and that a Certificate of Appealability be denied. This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Petitioner has filed timely objections to the F&R (Doc. 39) and respondent has filed a timely response. Doc. 40. Having reviewed the objection, response, and the entire file of this case, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Clarke’s order. Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Clarke’s F&R (Doc. 37) in its entirety. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 2) is dismissed. Further, the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the grounds that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, this action is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this _2_4_t_h_ day of March, 2021.

____________/s_/_A_n_n__ A__ik_e_n___________ Ann Aiken

United States District Judge