UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE LEFON BRIGGS, Case No. 2:21-cv-04458-JLS (SK)

Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY HABEAS PETITION CRAIG KOENIG, Warden, Respondent.

In accordance with

, the Court has reviewed the attached Report and Recommendation (R&R) to deny the habeas petition, any pertinent records as needed, and Plaintiff’s objections (ECF 28). 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 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 Petitioner’s objections affects the material findings and conclusions in the R&R, the Court accepts the recommendation and orders that the petition under

be DENIED. Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice will be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.

~ agli DATED: June 26, 2023 JOSEPHINE L. STATON United States District Judge