1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – EASTERN DIVISION

10 Case No. 5:22-cv-01040-FWS-DTB 11

12 JASON CHUNGCHIEN YU, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 CONCLUSIONS AND Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [49] 15 v. AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [51] 16 NEIL MCDOWELL, AS ACTING 17 WARDEN, IRONWOOD STATE PRISON, 18

19 Respondant. 20 21 22 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History 23 Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s September 24, 2025, Report and 24 Recommendation. (Dkt. 49 (“Report and Recommendation” or “R&R”).) Based on 25 the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report 26 and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including each of the findings 27 of fact and conclusions of law therein. 28 1 In summary, on June 27, 2022, Petitioner Jason Chungchien Yu (“Petitioner”)

2 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28

. (Dkt. 1.) On that same date, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Kelly Stay,

4 pursuant to Kelly v. Small,

(9th Cir. 2003), that requested “to hold his

5 federal petition in abeyance while he exhausts remaining available remedies in state

6 court.” (Dkt. 2 (“Motion for Kelly Stay”).) On July 21, 2022, the Magistrate Judge

7 granted the Motion for a Kelly Stay, imposed a Kelly stay, and included an order

8 requiring periodic status reports. (Dkt. 5.) On July 28, 2025, Petitioner filed an

9 Amended Petition. (Dkt. 6.) From August 15, 2022, to June 25, 2024, seventeen

10 status reports were filed. (Dkts. 7-17, 19-24.) 11 On June 26, 2024, the Magistrate Judge vacated the Kelly stay. (Dkt. 25.) On 12 July 11, 2024, Petitioner filed the Second Amended Petition. (Dkt. 26. (“SAP” or the 13 “Petition”).) On August 27, 2024, Respondent Neil McDowell (“Respondent”) filed a 14 Motion to Dismiss the SAP, (Dkts. 30-31 (“MTD”)), that Petitioner opposed on 15 September 19, 2025, (Dkt. 33). On January 27, 2025, the court granted in part and 16 denied in part the MTD. (Dkt. 37.) 17 On March 10, 2025, Respondent filed the Answer to the Petition. (Dkt. 41 18 (“Answer”).) On April 1, 2025, Petitioner filed the Reply/Traverse to the Answer. 19 (Dkt. 45 (“Reply”).) On September 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report 20 and Recommendation. (Dkt. 49.) On October 8, 2025, Petitioner objected to the 21 Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 51 (“Objections”).) 22 II. Discussion 23 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 24 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 25 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 26 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 27 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 28 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 1 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written

2 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge.

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of

4 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to

5 which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-

6 Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the

7 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de

8 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made,

9 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See

(b)(1)(C)

10 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 11 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by 12 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 13 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. 14 Haynes,

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 15 Here, in the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended 16 that the court issue an order: 17 (1) Approving and accepting this Report and Recommendation; and 18 (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 19 20 (R&R at 53.) 21 In the Objections, Petitioner argues that Habeas Relief is warranted on grounds 22 one through four. (See generally Petition.) Petitioner asserts that he “has demonstrated 23 that his Constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were 24 violated,” and accordingly, the court “should grant the within writ and release 25 Petitioner.” (Id. at 10.) 26 After conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the court agrees with each 27 of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and 28 Recommendation, including each of the recommendations contained therein. 1 | Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments set forth in the Objections are OVERRULED on 2 | the merits. 3 In sum, pursuant to

, the court has reviewed and considered the 4 | files and records of the case, including the Report and Recommendation, the Petition, 5 | the Answer, the Reply, the Objections, and the other records of the case. After 6 | conducting a de novo review of the Objections, the court concurs with and accepts the 7 | findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. 8 Il. Conclusion 9 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court 10 | concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the 11 | Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court 12 | ORDERS that Judgment is entered DENYING the Petition and DISMISSING this 13 | action WITH PREJUDICE. 14 15 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 16

18 Dated: November 17, 2025 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28