The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
JON QUINTIN JOHNSTON,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00969-AC
Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER
V.
GARRETT LANEY, Superintendent,
Oregon State Correctional Institution; and
OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND
POST-PRISON SUPERVISION,
Respondents.
MOSMAN, J., □
On October 14, 2021, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 29], recommending that I deny Petitioner Jon Johnston’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and enter a judgment of dismissal. Johnston filed
objections to the FRR [ECF 31]. Respondents—the Superintendent of the Oregon State
Correctional Institution and the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision—
responded to those objections [ECF 32]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta and DENY the
petition.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge
1 — OPINION & ORDER
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140; 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the FRR. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). .
CONCLUSION .
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and J ADOPT the F&R [ECF _
29]. Accordingly, I DENY the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and decline to issue a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this □□ of January, 2022.
MICHAEL W, vi
United States District Judge
2 — OPINION & ORDER