1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MICHAEL J. SINGH, Case No. CV 21-9379-MWF (ADS)

12 Petitioner ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 JAMES ROBERTSON, Warden, JUDGE et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition (Document 18 No. 1), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 19 recommending the Petition be denied (“Report,” Docket No. 18), the Objections to 20 the Report (Docket No. 19), and the other relevant records on file. The Court has 21 conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which the Objections 22 are directed — essentially to the Report’s analysis of the state appellate court’s 23 opinion under highly deferential AEDPA review (id. at 2-3). See Cullen v. 24 Pinholster,

(2011) (AEDPA imposes a “‘difficult to meet’ and 25 ‘highly deferential’ standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that 26 state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” (internal citations omitted)). 27 However, the Objections merely repeat Petitioner’s argument in the Petition that was 28 adequately discussed and rejected in the Report. (Docket No. 1 at 32-34; Docket 1 || No. 18 at 6-13; Docket No. 19 at 2-3). For the reasons stated in the Report, 2 || Petitioner has failed to overcome AEDPA’s “formidable barrier” to relief. See Burt 3 || v. Titlow,

(2013) (AEDPA presents “a formidable barrier to federal 4 || habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state court”); 5 || United States v. Ramos, 65 F 4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court ha[s] 6 || no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”). 7 Finally, for the reasons stated in the Report and this Order, a certificate of 8 || appealability (“COA”) is denied. See

(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 9 || Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 11 (1) the Report is ACCEPTED; 12 (2) the Petition and a COA are DENIED; 13 (3) Judgment be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice. 14 =

16 || Dated: June 24, 2024

7 MICHAEL W. FITZG D United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28