IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOHN JAY MATECKI, III, No. 2:18-cv-00461-YY

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

BRIGITTE AMSBERRY,

Respondent.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation on March 24, 2021, in which she recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [23]. F&R, ECF No. 66. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Petitioner filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. Pet’r’s Obj., ECF No. 70. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & 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 there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation No. 66. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [23] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____J_u_n__e_ 2_2_,_ _2_0_2_1_______.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge