IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM THOMPSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-00511-SB Petitioner, ORDER v.

JAMIE MILLER,

Respondent.

BAGGIO, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation on July 30, 2025, in which she recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and dismiss this action with prejudice. F&R, ECF No. 30. 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 and Recommendation. Pet’r’s Obj., ECF No. 34. 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 there is no basis to modify the Findings and 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 [30]. Therefore, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] is DENIED. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court DENIES the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability. See

(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this □□ day of October, 2025.

United States District Judge

2 — ORDER