1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12 KEYONNA J. B.,
No. 2:24-cv-02943-WDK-BFM
13 Plaintiff,
ORDER ACCEPTING
14 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND
15 LELAND DUDEK, Acting RECOMMENDATION
Commissioner of Social Security,
16
Defendant.
17
18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all
19 the records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
20 Recommendation (Doc. No. 21), and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and
21 Recommendation (Doc. No. 23). The Court has engaged in a de novo review of
22 those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been
23 made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-
24 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
25 In doing so, the Court has declined to consider any arguments raised for
26 the first time only in the objections. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615,
27 621-23 (9th Cir. 2000). It has also declined to consider objections that simply
28 repeat arguments fully addressed but rejected in the Report and
1 || Recommendation. See Trejo Perez v. Madden, 2020 WL 1154807, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
2 || Mar. 10, 2020) (objections that “merely repeat|] the same arguments...
3 || considered and found to be insufficient” require no review since they “do not
4 || meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations’);
5 || Hagberg v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3386595, at *1 (D. Mont. Oct. 14, 2009) (“Objections
6 || toa magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations are not a vehicle for the losing
7 || party to relitigate its case.”).
8 Concluding that nothing in Plaintiff's objections affects the material
9 || findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts
10 || the reeommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
11 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
12 1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted.
13 2. The decision of the ALJ is affirmed.
14 3. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed and the action is dismissed with
15 || prejudice.
16 4, Judgment shall be entered consistent with this Order.
17 5. The Court Clerk shall serve this Order and the Judgment on all
18 || counsel or parties of record.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 Tiftceran 2 fet
21 || DATED: August 5, 2025
99 HONORABLE WILLIAM D. KELLER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.