United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
July 7, 2015
LUIS SANCHEZ-ALFONSO, Petitioner,
BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION AND CARLA PINTO, Probation Officer, Respondents,
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.
On April 13, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R")  in the above-captioned case, recommending that a judgment be entered dismissing Petitioner Luis Sanchez-Alfonso's petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. Mr. Sanchez-Alfonso filed objected to the recommendation that his petition was time-barred.
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 regarding 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, de novo or under 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 part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R  as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.