ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TERRY J. HATTER, Jr., District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. However, the Court addresses certain arguments raised in the Objections below.
Petitioner Carl Eckstrom ("Petitioner") asserts two separate claims in his habeas petition. First, Petitioner contends that he is not receiving proper mental health care and requests a transfer to a state mental hospital. Second, Petitioner claims that the California Board of Parole Hearings ("Board") improperly denied him parole because of his mental health status.
On November 1, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued its Report and Recommendation dismissing the Petition with prejudice. The Report concluded that Petitioner's first claim should be dismissed because that claim involved a challenge to the conditions of his confinement, which is a claim properly vindicated by filing a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, and not by filing a federal habeas petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Report also found that Petitioner's second claim must be dismissed because it involves a challenge to the merits of the Board's decision, which does not merit federal habeas review.
On December 5, 2013, Petitioner filed objections to the Report And Recommendation ("Objections"). The Objections merely restate the arguments made in the original Petition and Petitioner's the supplemental filing and do not address the bases for the Magistrate Judge's Report. In particular, Petitioner's citation to Docken v. Chase , 393 F.3d 1024, 1029-1032 (9th Cir. 2004), is not persuasive. Docken considered only the procedures for parole review and how a deviation from those procedures could be vindicated rather than the state's substantive decision to deny parole, which is the argument that Petitioner raises here. The Court finds that Petitioner's Objections have been addressed in and rejected by the Report and Recommendation and do not cause the Court to reconsider its decision to accept the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and recommendations.
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed with prejudice, and that Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the Judgment herein on Petitioner at his current ...