Driscoll 220676 v. Shinn, 4:17-cv-00216

Petitioner Rusty Driscoll filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his custody.
United States Magistrate Judge Macdonald issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending denial of the petition.
Driscoll filed objections to the R&R; the District Court reviewed objected-to portions de novo and unobjected portions for clear error.
The District Court found the objections did not undermine the R&R's analysis or conclusion and adopted the R&R.
The Court denied the § 2254 petition, dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed entry of judgment.
The Court also denied a certificate of appealability, concluding the issues are not debatable among reasonable jurists and do not deserve further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Merits of §2254 claims	Driscoll argued the R&R erred and his federal rights were violated	Respondents argued the R&R correctly rejected the claims on the record	Court adopted R&R and denied the habeas petition
Review of R&R objections	Driscoll objected to the R&R's conclusions (claimed error)	Respondents urged de novo review of objections and deferential review of unobjected portions	Court reviewed objections de novo, unobjected portions for clear error, and rejected objections
Certificate of Appealability (COA)	Driscoll implicitly sought review on appeal	Respondents argued no substantial showing of constitutional violation	COA denied; issues not debatable among reasonable jurists

Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1999) (standards for de novo and clear-error review of magistrate judge R&R)
Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Or. 1998) (discussion of district court review of magistrate judge recommendations)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)