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