Opinion
No. CV 05-190-HU.
March 19, 2007
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS RECOMMENDATION
On February 21, 2007, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation ("F R") (#28) in the above-captioned case recommending that petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) be denied. Although late, objections were filed.
In conducting my review of the F R, I apply the following standard. The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retain responsibility for making the final determination. I am 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, 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 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).
After reviewing the F R, the parties' objections and responses, and other relevant materials, the F R is ADOPTED without modification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.