Marquis Carey v. Giselle Matteson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARQUIS CAREY, Case No. 8-22-cv-01486-CJC (SK)

Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY HABEAS PETITION

GISELLE MATTESON, 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 (ECF 20), any pertinent records as needed, and Petitioner’s objections (ECF 21). The Court has reviewed de novo 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). In doing so, the Court has 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. Astrue, 2009 WL 3386595, at *1…