Case 5:21-cv-00592-VAP-SK Document 24 Filed 02/13/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1424

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN LUFT, Case No. 5:21-cv-00592-VAP (SK)

Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY HABEAS PETITION

BRIAN CATES, Warden, Respondent.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the attached Report and Recommendation (R&R) to deny the habeas petition, any pertinent records as needed, and Plaintiff’s objections (ECF 23). The Court has reviewed de novo those identifiable portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff 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). 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 simply repeat 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. Case 5:21-cv-00592-VAP-SK Document 24 Filed 02/13/23 Page 2of2 Page ID #:1425

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. § 2254 be DENIED. Judgment dismissing this action with prejudice will be entered accordingly.

IT ISSO ORDERED.

Veena A, Phan

DATED: 02/13/23

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE