Opinion
No. 3:09-cv-00936-HU
05-15-2012
SHAWN M. NEWCOMB, Petitioner, v. BRIAN BELLEQUE, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
MOSMAN, J.,
On January 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [53] in the above-captioned case recommending that I deny petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [33]. Petitioner filed Objections [58].
BACKGROUND
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, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination of 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, under a de novo or 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 of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner's nine objections to Magistrate Judge Hubel's findings are supported by arguments advanced in his Memorandum in Support of Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [31]. I have reviewed the briefing in this matter and the Exhibits to Answer [20] and find petitioner's arguments unpersuasive.
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [53] as my own opinion. Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [33] is DENIED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge