1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNNY SHAW, Case No. 5:22-cv-00669-FLA (SK)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION TO DENY HABEAS PETITION 14 CHANCE ANDES, Acting Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 In accordance with

, the court has reviewed the filed Report 19 and Recommendation (“R&R”) to Deny Habeas Petition, any pertinent records as 20 needed, and Petitioner’s objections (ECF 28, 30).1 The court has reviewed de novo 21 those identifiable portions of the R&R to which Petitioner has timely and properly 22 objected. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. 23 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 24

25 1 Petitioner initially filed his objections with a Request for Judicial Notice, which the court previously addressed. (ECF 28–29). Petitioner has since clarified that he 26 intended the arguments presented in his request for judicial notice as objections to the R&R (and at the same time provided a few supplemental points). Dkt. 30 at 1. 27 The court, therefore, construes the arguments made in Petitioner’s Request for 28 Judicial Notice and later-filed response as his complete set of objections to the | In doing so, the court has declined to consider any arguments raised for the 2 | first time only in the objections. See United States v. Howell,

, 621-23 3 | (9th Cir. 2000). It has also declined to consider any blanket or boilerplate objection 4 | to the final disposition recommended in the R&R. See McCullock v. Tharratt, 2017 5 | WL 6398611, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017). 6 Concluding that nothing in Petitioner’s objections affects the material 7 | findings and conclusions in the R&R, the court accepts the recommendation and 8 | orders that the petition under

be DENIED. Judgment dismissing 9 | this action with prejudice will be entered accordingly. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 | Dated: February 18, 2025 sere) 14 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28