The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
DONALD ODOMS, Case No. 6:17-cv-00775-AC
ORDER
Petitioner,
vs.
OREGON STATE BOARD OF PAROLE
AND POST PRISON SUPERVISION,
Respondent.
AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge John Acosta has filed his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) (Doc. 45) recommending that the Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. (Doc. 2) Magistrate Judge Acosta further recommended that this action be
dismissed and no Certificate of Appealability be issued. This case is now before me.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the
district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate
judge’s report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S.
920 (1982).
Petitioner has filed timely objections (doc. 47) and respondent has filed a timely
response (doc. 48) Having reviewed the objections and the file of this case, the Court
finds no error in Magistrate Judge Acosta’s order.
Thus, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Acosta’s F&R (doc. 45) in its entirety.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of
Appealability on the basis that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this _2_4_t_h_ day of March, 2021.
____________/s_/_A_n_n__ A__ik_e_n___________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge