Mark P. Oster v. Mark W. Burnett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK P. OSTER, Case No. 8:23-cv-02401-DOC (SK)

Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED

Defendant. COMPLAINT

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the filed Report and Recommendation (R&R) to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, any pertinent records as needed, and Plaintiff’s objections (ECF 33). None of those objections has merit. For starters, objections that “merely repeat[] the same arguments . . . considered and found to be insufficient” do not trigger de novo review since they “do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.” Trejo Perez v. Madden, 2020 WL 1154807, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020). Thus, for petitioner’s objections that merely reargue the same grounds for statutory or equitable tolling considered—but rejected—in the R&R, the Court has no duty to reevaluate those same arguments from scratch. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United…