Opinion
No. CV 04-265-MO.
March 28, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
On February 14, 2006, Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas issued Findings and Recommendation ("FR") (#47) in the above-captioned case recommending petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition (#1) be denied. No objections were filed.
The magistrate judge only makes recommendations to the district 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. Where objections have been made, I conduct a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, I am 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 FR to which no objections are made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Ashmanskas' recommendation to DENY the petition, and I ADOPT the FR as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.