1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] RONALD DALE BENNETT, Case No. ED CV 24-0046 AH (PVC) 12 Petitioner

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT

13 V. AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

14 EDWARD BORLA], Warden, JUDGE, DENYING PENDING

MOTIONS AND CERTIFICATE

15 Respondent. OF APPEALABILITY 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, both in its 18 || original form and as construed by the Report and Recommendation of United States 19 || Magistrate Judge (see Dkt. 59 at 2; “Report’’), the Report itself, Petitioner’s 20 || Objections to the Report (Dkts. 80, 81, 83-89, 91-93, 96, 99, 102, 103, 106); 21 || “Objections”), Petitioner’s remaining various motions filed before, and discussed in, 22 || the Report (Dkts. 42, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59 at 2 n.4), and filed after the Report 23 || (Dkts. 107, 108), and the other relevant records on file. 24 Despite the Magistrate Judge’s directive allowing Petitioner to file “a” written 25 || statement of Objections, Petitioner, as noted, has instead filed multiple sets of 26 || Objections. Dkt. 58. Moreover, despite the Magistrate’s directive, and without leave 27 |, AA 28 ' Edward Borla, the Warden at Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, where Petitioner is currently incarcerated, is substituted for his predecessor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1 from the Court, Petitioner has filed many of these beyond the February 3, 2025, 2 deadline. Id. In total, at least seventeen separate Objections have been lodged 3 encompassing over 750 pages of material. 4 The Court has considered all the Objections but, consistent with the 5 Magistrate Judge’s review of the filings related to the Petition (see Dkt. 56 at 1-2), 6 elects to focus on the first set of timely filed Objections. Dkt. 80. The Court has 7 engaged in a de novo review of the Report and record. Although not required, the 8 Court briefly discusses the following points. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 9 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide 10 individualized analysis of each objection”); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 11 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a cursory district court order summarily adopting, without 12 addressing any objections, a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). 13 As with Petitioner’s other filings, the Objections are excessively verbose, 14 convoluted, virtually unintelligible, and confusing, making it difficult to parse his 15 complaints about the Report. See, e.g., Dkt. 59 at 2 (Report’s similar 16 characterization of the Petition). For example, rather than directing the Court to 17 specific areas of the Report he contests, he cites biblical references and authorities 18 not at issue in these proceedings, such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 19 Organizations Act, or that do not exist, such as the purported “Rigged Trials Act.” 20 See Dkt. 80 at 9-10, 40, 58-60, 65, 67, 71, 73-77. Additionally, Petitioner makes 21 blanket assertions that the Report is “biase[d] & false,” a “farce,” a miscarriage of 22 justice (id. at 1, 19, 25, 29, 40, 50), and accuses the Magistrate Judge of being 23 “guilty” of an abuse of discretion, perjury, fraud, and that the Magistrate Judge 24 otherwise issued the Report in bad faith (id. 26-28, 50, 51, 70-71, 73, 75, 86-87, 99). 25 To the extent he seeks recusal due to this by suggesting the Court prohibit the 26 Magistrate Judge from “having any involvement in the underlying case,” 27 Petitioner’s mere disagreement with Report’s findings and recommendations is 28 insufficient to warrant recusal. See, e.g., Latronica v. Lynch, No. 1 || 116CV01352LJOSAB, 2016 WL 10654059, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2016) 2 || (“disagreement with the magistrate judge’s orders and findings and 3 || recommendations is not sufficient to warrant recusal’). 4 Moreover, to the extent Petitioner merely repeats his claims and arguments 5 || already presented in the Petition, those were adequately addressed in the Report. See 6 || Dkt. 80 at 67-69. Finally, to the extent he alleges he was prejudiced or that the 7 || various errors he alleges were not harmless (see id. at 31-32, 48), he has failed to 8 || meet any standard of prejudice. 9 As such, the Objections are OVERRULED. The Court accepts the Report 10 || and adopts it as its own findings and conclusions. Accordingly, Judgment shall be 11 || entered DENYING the Petition, DENYING all pending motions, and 12 || DISMISSING this action with prejudice. 13 Further, for the reasons stated in the Report and articulated here, Petitioner 14 || has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 15 || U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 16 || (2003). The Court therefore DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ; 19 || Dated: April 7, 2025 fm WwW ( ) 20 ANNE HWANG | United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28