The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
TIMOTHY DANIEL FINLEY, Case No. 6:18-cv-00931-SB
Petitioner, ORDER
v.
GARRETT LANEY, Superintendent,
Oregon State Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
IMMERGUT, District Judge.
Petitioner Timothy Daniel Finley, an individual in custody at the Oregon State
Correctional Institution, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2014 decision by the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison
Supervision. ECF 1. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) on March 24, 2020, recommending that this Court deny Petitioner’s
Habeas Petition (ECF 1), dismiss the case with prejudice, and decline to issue a certificate of
appealability. ECF 38. Petitioner timely filed objections to the F&R, ECF 40, to which
Respondent replied. ECF 41.
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). If a party files objections 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, 152 (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 has considered Petitioner’s objections and reviewed Magistrate Judge
Beckerman’s F&R de novo. Finding no error, this Court adopts Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s
F&R. ECF 38. Petitioner’s Habeas Petition, ECF 1, is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED
with prejudice. This Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required under
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of April, 2020.
Karin J. Immergut
United States District Judge