Jonatan Perez v. J. Engleman

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Jonatan Perez v. J. Engleman

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATAN PEREZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-03105-GW (SK)

Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY HABEAS PETITION J. ENGLEMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

In accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 636

, the Court has reviewed the filed Report and Recommendation (R&R) to Deny Habeas Petition (ECF 24), petitioner’s timely Objections to the R&R (ECF 26), respondent’s timely Response to the Objections (ECF 31), and any pertinent records as needed. The Court has reviewed de novo only those identifiable portions of the R&R to which petitioner has timely and properly objected. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

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

328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). [Optional: 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,

231 F.3d 615, 621-23

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

2020 WL 1154807

, 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,

2009 WL 3386595

, 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,

2017 WL 6398611

, 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

28 U.S.C. § 2241

be DENIED for the reasons stated in the R&R. Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice will be entered accordingly. IT ISSO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2024 fry fi tm GEORGE H. WU United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown