Case 2:20-cv-10448-SVW-SK Document 81 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:784

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEWAYNE THOMPSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-10448-SVW (SK)

Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MARIO NAWAZ et al., MOTIONS TO DISMISS Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

In accordance with

, the Court has reviewed the attached Report and Recommendation (R&R) to grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, any pertinent records as needed, and Plaintiff’s objections (ECF 79). The Court has reviewed de novo those identifiable portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff has timely and properly objected. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). In doing so, the Court has declined to consider any arguments raised for the first time only in the objections. See United States v. Howell,

(9th Cir. 2000). It has also declined to consider objections that simply repeat arguments fully addressed but rejected in the R&R. See Trejo Perez v. Madden,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020) (objections that “merely repeat[] the same arguments . . . considered and found to be insufficient” require no review since they “do not meaningfully Case 2:20-cv-10448-SVW-SK Document 81 Filed 09/08/22 Page 2of2 Page ID#:785

dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations”); Hagberg v. Astrue,

, at *1 (D. Mont. Oct. 14, 2009) (“Objections to a magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations are not a vehicle for the losing party to relitigate its case.”). Finally, the Court has declined to consider any blanket or boilerplate objection to the final disposition recommended in the R&R. See McCullock v. Tharratt,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017). Concluding that nothing in Plaintiffs objections affects the material findings and conclusions in the R&R, the Court accepts the recommendation and orders that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend. Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice will be entered accordingly. Any outstanding requests (ECF 78, 80) are DENIED as moot. IT ISSO ORDERED.

DATED: September 8, 2022 <[-r/E 2. 7 STEPHEN V. WILSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE