Eleazar Acosta Hurtado v. Neil McDowell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELEAZAR ACOSTA HURTADO, Case No. 8:22-cv-00058-JLS (SK)

Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION TO

v.

DENY HABEAS PETITION

NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden,

Respondent.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the filed Report and Recommendation (R&R) to deny the habeas petition, any pertinent records as needed, and petitioner’s objections (ECF 23). 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). That means the Court has no duty to consider purported 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…