Opinion
No. CIV S-03-1172 DFL GGH P.
September 26, 2005
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.
On February 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Respondent has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court does not adopt the magistrate judge's discussion of Dannenberg and its possible effect. Nor does the court find it necessary in this case to consider whether Dannenberg eliminates, or more possibly, alters the liberty interest in parole created by state law. Assuming that such a liberty interest exists and that the liberty interest is defined as stated in Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 2003), no violation of that liberty interest occurred here for the reasons stated in the findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 3, 2005, are adopted to the extent indicated above; and
2. The petition is denied.