Gillard

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

THOMAS MICHAEL ALLAN GILLARD, Case No. 3:26-cv-00441-CL

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

BRIAN PIXLEY, Superintendent, Columbia

County Jail,

Respondent.

AIKEN, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke has filed a Findings and Recommendation

(“F&R”) recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 9, be

DENIED. ECF No. 11. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, 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 findings and recommendations, “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.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Page 1 – ORDER

For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to

which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress,

in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s

report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the

absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the

district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely

objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the

face of the record.”

Here, Petitioner filed a letter on June 12, 2026, ECF No. 13 which the Court

will construe as objections.

DISCUSSION

[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas

corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a

State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In line with the statutory text, the Supreme Court has said that “it is not

the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on

state-law questions. In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to

deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (citations omitted).

Page 2 – ORDER

As stated above, the Court will construe Petitioner’s filing, ECF No. 13, as

objections to the F&R. In his objections, Petitioner states: “[A]s I’ve previously

explained on the petition, and countless more unlawful actions that are blatantly

egregious and clear violations of not simply Oregon state law but more importantly

my Constitutional Rights.” ECF No. 13 at 2. That statement addresses the reason

the F&R recommends dismissal of this action: “Gillard does not identify in the

amended petition a federal basis for relief, nor does he argue that he is entitled to

relief under any provision of federal law.” F&R at 4.

Petitioner’s objection regarding a violation of his constitutional rights is

conclusory. While he alleges that his constitutional rights have been violated, he does

not cite any constitutional right in his latest filing, nor does he cite any federal law

(or treaty). In fact, Petitioner’s latest filing is in line with all his previous filings: he

repeatedly cites Oregon state law and regulations. See ECF No. 13 (citing ORS

421.508(4); Gaynor v. Board of Parole, 165 Or. App. 609 (2000); ORS 144.317; ORS

144.345(2); ORS 137.751; ORS 144.341; OAR 231-011-004; OAR 213-012-0040; OAR

255-075-0079).

The Court has reviewed all of Petitioner’s filings. In Petitioner’s Amended

Petition, ECF No. 9, his stated grounds for relief are: (1) “ORS 144.345(2) was

misinterpreted; (2) ORS 144.106, 144.107, 144.317, and 144.337; and (3) “The

Columbia County parole and probation office did not have authority to revoke

supervision.” Am. Pet. As to the third ground, Petitioner makes clear that this is the

Page 3 – ORDER

same as first ground. Compare “Ground One” at 5 with “Ground Three” at 8 (both

citing the misinterpretation of ORS 144.345(2)).

In his Supplement to the Amended Petition, ECF No. 10, Petitioner cites

additional sources of Oregon law, but his general argument is the same: “[I]t is my

belief that my Hawaii conviction . . . legally terminated my Oregon term of post-prison

supervision . . . pursuant to ORS 144.345(2).” Supp. to Am. Pet. at 6. Additionally, he

cites an Oregon regulation, OAR 255-075-0079, and an Oregon court case, Gaynor v.

Board of Parole, 165 Or. App. 609 (2000). Id.

The Court finds that Petitioner has not presented a federal ground for relief.

As such, Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and

the Petition must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

The Court has reviewed the F&R de novo and finds no error. The F&R, ECF

No. 11, is therefore ADOPTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this __6_t_h____ day of August 2026.

/s/Ann Aiken

ANN AIKEN

United States District Judge

Page 4 – ORDER