ROBERT CODY SUMMERS v. STATE OF OREGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROBERT CODY SUMMERS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00029-JR Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

No objections to Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 18, have been filed. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the F&R. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(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.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (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, 474 U.S. at 154.

This Court adopts in full Judge Russo’s F&R, ECF 18, and DENIES Petitioner’s habeas petition, ECF 2, as untimely. This Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2026.

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