Case 2:20-cv-09718-FWS-AS Document 56 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:6224

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 RUDOLFO ALCANTAR, Case No. CV 20-09718-FWS(AS) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND 14 RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, 15 STATES MAGISTRTE JUDGE 16 Respondent.

17 18 I. Introduction 19 20 Before the Court is a Petition for Writ Of Habeas Corpus by 21 a Person in State Custody [1] (“Petition”) filed by Petitioner 22 Rudolfo Alcantar (“Petitioner”). Pursuant to

636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records of the 24 case, and the Report and Recommendation of United States 25 Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of 26 the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections 27 were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings 28 and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Case 2:20-cv-09718-FWS-AS Document 56 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:6225

1 II. Analysis 2 3 “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of 4 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 5 recommendations to which objection is made.”

636(b)(1). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, 7 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 8 magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) 9 (stating “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of 10 the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly 11 objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or 12 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 13 return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 14 Proper objections require “specific written objections to the 15 proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Where no objection has been made, 17 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a 19 copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such 20 proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of 21 court.”). 22 23 In this case, Petitioner makes the following objections to 24 the Report and Recommendation and asserts that each objection 25 entitles Petitioner to relief: (1) the joinder of charges was 26 improper; (2) the improper admission of hearsay testimony was 27 error in that it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) 28 Petitioner is entitled to relief vis-a-vis the carjacking special

2 Case 2:20-cv-09718-FWS-AS Document 56 Filed 09/28/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:6226

1 circumstance; and (4) cumulative errors here rise to the level of 2 a constitutional violation (collectively, “Objections”). (Dkt. 3 55.) The Court finds the substance of the each of the Objections 4 was previously argued in the Petition and Petitioner’s Reply 5 (“Reply”). (See Dkts. 1, 51.) The Court further finds the 6 substance of the each of the Objections was previously analyzed 7 and addressed by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and 8 Recommendation. (See Dkt. 54.) 9 10 “Objections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 11 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the 12 Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. Haynes,

, at *1 (W.D. 13 Wash. Oct. 12, 2021); see also Fix v. Hartford Life & Accident 14 Ins. Co.,

, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 2017) 15 (finding that where a party “essentially recycles her previous 16 arguments in an attempt to relitgate her case” in objecting to a 17 R&R, it results in a “failure to specify her objections in 18 accordance with Rule 72, [and] the Court is permitted to overrule 19 the objections without analysis”). Moreover, “[i]t is well 20 settled that an objecting party may not ‘submit [] papers to a 21 district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the 22 same arguments and positions taken in the original papers 23 submitted to the Magistrate Judge.’” Espaillat v. Saul,

5087030, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2020) (citations omitted). 25 “‘Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a second bite at the 26 apple when they file objections to a [Report].’”

(citations 27 omitted); see also Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,

3598293, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2022)(“[P]arties are not to be

3 Case 2:20-cv-09718-FWS-AS Document 56 Filed 09/28/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:6227

1 afforded a second bite at the apple when they file objections to 2 a Report”) (citation omitted). Therefore, because the Court 3 concludes that the Objections “relitigate the same arguments 4 carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge”, 5 Chith,

, at *1, the Objections are OVERRULED. 6 7 Nonetheless, even when the Court conducts a de novo review 8 of the issues presented in the Objections on their merits, the 9 Court agrees with each of the findings of fact and conclusions of 10 law set forth in the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, 11 including the findings of facts and conclusions of law related to 12 the Objections. Thus, for argument’s sake, even if the 13 Objections were properly made, they are each OVERRULED on their 14 merits. 15 16 III. Conclusion 17 18 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the 19 applicable law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, 20 including each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law 21 therein. Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition 23 and dismissing this action with prejudice. 24 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28

4 Case 2:20-cv-09718-FWS-AS Document Filed 09/28/22 Page5of5 Page ID #:6228 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this 3 Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Judgment herein on counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Respondent. 7 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 9 DATED: September 28, 2022

1 To bl /—~ 1 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28