INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T FORT HED ISTROIFCO TR EGON PEDNLETODNI VISION

JACOABN THONY, CasNeo2 .: 15-cv-00291 OPINIAONNDO RDER Petitioner, vs. JOHN MYRSIuCpKe,r intendent, TwRoi vCeorrsr ecItnisotniatlu tion, Respondent. AIKEDNi,rs itJcutd ge: United MSatgaitsetJsru adtMgeae rDk. C larikses uae Fdi ndianngds Recommen(d"aFt&(iRdo"on9)c 9 o.)nJ un1e32 ,0 1r9e,c ommetnhdaPiten tgi tioner

Jacob APnetthiofotnrWiy ro'insot f H abeCaosr p(udso2 c)b. ed eniJeudd.Cg lea rke furtrheecro mmepnedteidtb iedo enneirae C de rtiofifcA aptpee albaebcialuistey petithianoson mtea rd aes ubstsahnotgwio iaftnlh dee noifaac lo nstirtiugthito nal und2e8Ur . S§.2 C2.5 3(Pce)t(i2t)ti.io mnfieellreoy db jec(tdio1oc1n.t3s o)t hFe& R to which respondent responded (doc. 114). The matter is now before me pursuant to

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the F&R.

(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall,

(9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). I have carefully considered petitioner's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the F&R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no errors in the F&R. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke's F&R (doc. 99) and therefore petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 2) is DENIED. A Certificate of Appealability is denied because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to

(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this of March 2020. Onis Qh. Ann Aiken United States District Judge