We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm, essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum of decision, dated August 12, 2002.

We reject appellant’s contention that his habeas petition was dismissed by the district court without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Appellant, in fact, filed an opposition to the state’s motion to dismiss, which the court considered. Although appellant sought to file a second response to the motion to dismiss, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing that request. Further, there was no abuse of discretion in denying appellant’s motion seeking an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.