1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER AGUAYO, Case No. 5:24-cv-122-FWS-RAO

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER REOPENING CASE AND

ACCEPTING REPORT AND

14 HEATHER SHIRLEY, Warden, RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

15 Respondent. JUDGE 16 17 The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on 18 May 27, 2025, recommending dismissal of this action. Dkt. No. 14. Objections to 19 the Report were due by June 16, 2025, and the Court did not receive any objections 20 by the deadline. On June 27, 2025, the Court accepted the Report, dismissed the 21 action, denied a certificate of appealability, and entered judgment. Dkt. Nos. 15–17. 22 On July 11, 2025, the Court received a letter from Petitioner Alexander 23 Aguayo with his objections to the Report. Dkt. Nos. 18–19. Petitioner states that he 24 was transferred to Folsom State Prison and did not receive a copy of the Report until 25 June 24, 2025. Dkt. No. 18. 26 The Court will construe Petitioner’s letter as a motion for relief from judgment 27 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 28 /// 1 Rule 60(b) provides for relief from judgment upon a showing of (1) mistake, 2 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which 3 by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud 4 by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; 5 or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 6 The Court finds that Petitioner has shown entitlement to relief from the June 7 27, 2025, order of dismissal and judgment to allow the Court to consider his 8 objections to the Report. Because Petitioner did not receive a copy of the Report 9 until after the deadline to file objections had passed, the June 27, 2025, Order 10 Accepting Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 15, and Judgment, Dkt. No. 16, 11 are hereby VACATED. The action is REOPENED for the purpose of considering 12 Petitioner’s objections to the Report. 13 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 14 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 15 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 16 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 17 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 18 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 19 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 20 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination 22 of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to 23 which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- 24 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the 25 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 26 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, 27 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 28 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 1 || written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by 2 || rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 3 || same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith 4 || v. Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 5 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 6 || Habeas Corpus, Dkt. No. 1; Respondent’s Answer to the Petition, Dkt. No. 11; the 7 || Report, Dkt. No. 14; Petitioner’s Objections to the Report, Dkt. No. 19; and all of the 8 || records and files herein. 9 Petitioner argues that his procedural default should be excused because the 10 || alleged instructional error results in a miscarriage of justice. Dkt. No. 19 at 2. 11 || Petitioner further argues that his double-jeopardy claim is not based on state law and 12 || is cognizable on federal habeas review. /d. at 2-3. The Court has engaged in a de 13 || novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff objected and does not 14 || find them persuasive. The Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, 15 || and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge contained in the Report. 16 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and Judgment shall be entered 17 || dismissing this action with prejudice. 18 19 || DATED: August 28, 2025 LU LS /—_ *° HON. FRED SLAUGHTER 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28