ORDER

STEVEN P. LOGAN, District Judge.

The Court has before it Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The Court has also received Respondents' Answer (Doc. 13), and Petitioner's Reply. (Doc. 14.) We also have before us the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 19), Petitioner's timely Objections (Doc. 20), and Respondents' Response to Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 21.)

The Petitioner raises seven grounds for relief in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1 at 2-39.) Respondents argue two of Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted, three claims fail to state a cognizable claim and that the remaining claims fail on the merits. (Doc. 13 at 2-34.) Judge Burns also concluded two grounds were procedurally defaulted, three grounds failed to state a cognizable claim and that the remaining counts failed on the merits. (Doc. 19 at 33.)

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that have been "properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court's decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).

Petitioner has presented the same arguments that he initially made in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1.) This Court has, nonetheless, undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed record and the objections to the findings and recommendations in the very detailed R&R, without the need for an evidentiary hearing. After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by Judge Burns. Specifically, the Court finds the Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on Grounds One and Three, that Grounds Two, Four, and Seven fail to state a claim and that Grounds Five and Six fail on the merits. Additionally, Petitioner's new argument that he did not consent to a Magistrate Judge, lacks merit. (Doc. 20 at 4.)

Having carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to habeas relief. The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and adopted by the Court;

2. That the Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 20) are overruled;

3. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice;

4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and

5. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.