CHRISTOPHER D. ZURCHER, Petitioner, v. GUY HALL, Respondent.

Civil Case No. 07-570-PK.United States District Court, D. Oregon.
August 11, 2008

ORDER Todd H. Grover, Bend, Oregon, Attorney for Petitioner.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Jonathan W. Diehl, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Attorneys for Respondent.

GARR KING, District Judge

Page 2

The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on July 1, 2008. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The petitioner has filed objections and the government has filed a response.

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo
determination of that portion of the magistrate’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); McDonnell DouglasCorp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
(9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Having given a de novo review of the issues raised in the objections to the Findings and Recommendation, I note only one error that does not change the outcome. Petitioner was sentenced to 240 months of Attempted Aggravated Murder, not Aggravated Murder as indicated on page two of Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation.

Accordingly, with the exception noted above, I ADOPT Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation (#28). The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#16) is DENIED. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

Page 1