Case Name: James B. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph LEHMAN, Secretary of Department of Corrections; Jamie Nyblod, Community Corrections Officer, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-26
Citations: 301 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 05-35724
Parties: James B. MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph LEHMAN, Secretary of Department of Corrections; Jamie Nyblod, Community Corrections Officer, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, GRABER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
James B. MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph LEHMAN, Secretary of Department of Corrections; Jamie Nyblod, Community Corrections Officer, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-35724.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2008.
Filed Nov. 26, 2008.
James E. Lobsenz, Carney Badley Spell-man, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Alex A. Kostin, Esquire, Gregory J. Rosen, Esquire, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, GRABER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner James Miller (Miller) appeals the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and request for an evidentiary hearing.
Although a question was raised initially regarding whether the district court deferred to findings by the state court that were not findings of fact, the district court ultimately adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation properly analyzed Miller's claims under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).
There was no error in the district court's conclusion that the state court reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in assessing defense counsel's performance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (articulating AEDPA standard of review).
Finally, Miller was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his "allegations [of ineffective assistance of counsel], if proved, would [not] entitle him to relief." Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 670 (9th Cir.2005) (citation and footnote reference omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.