IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JEFFERY BRIAN JOHNSON, Case No. 2:22-cv-01726-JR

Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING F&R IN FULL

v.

JAMIE MILLER, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution,

Respondent.

Susan F. Wilk, Office of the Federal Public Defender, 101 SW Main Street, Suit 1700, Portland, OR 97204. Attorney for Petitioner.

James Aaron, Oregon Department of Justice, 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301. Attorney for Respondent.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On July 24, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 57. The F&R recommends that this Court deny the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF 29, enter a judgment of dismissal, and deny a certificate of appealability. Petitioner timely filed objections to the F&R, ECF 59, on August 8, 2025. Respondent filed a timely response to those objections, ECF 61, on August 25, 2025. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Petitioner objected and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s F&R in full. Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn,

, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas,

. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Russo’s F&R to which Petitioner objected. Judge Russo’s F&R, ECF 57, is ADOPTED in full. This Court DENIES the Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF 29 and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13th day of November 2025.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge