ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, all of the records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court has further engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation issued on October 23, 2017, to which Petitioner has objected. The Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

The Court notes that Petitioner appears to raise for the first time a new claim that was not addressed in the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that his Miranda rights were violated when he was interrogated by law enforcement after invoking his right to counsel. Dkt. No. 28 at 2-3. Petitioner did not raise this claim on direct appeal of his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, nor did he raise this claim in his Petition in the instant action (see Dkt. No. 1 at 5; 1-1 at 32, 38.) A district court has discretion, but is not required to consider arguments or evidence raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 935 (9th Cir. 2004); Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the Court declines to consider the new claim now asserted by Petitioner for the first time in his objections.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.