district court 8 || abuses its discretion when it fails to consider new and “novel” arguments ? presented by a pro se habeas petitioner in objecting to a magistrate judges report 10 and recommendation
How later courts described this case
- district court 8 || abuses its discretion when it fails to consider new and “novel” arguments ? presented by a pro se habeas petitioner in objecting to a magistrate judges report 10 and recommendation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case 2:21-cv-07403-SPG-JDE Document 25 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:657
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 WESTERN DIVISION
11 ANDRANIK KARAGULYAN, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-07403-SPG-JDE
)
12 )
Plaintiff, ) ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
13 ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF
v. )
14 ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting ) JUDGE
)
15 Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
16
Defendant. )
)
17
)
18
19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the
20 Joint Stipulation of the parties, the records on file, the Report and
21 Recommendation of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge, the
22 Objections to the Report filed by Plaintiff, and the Reply to the Objections filed
23 by Defendant. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of
24 the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The
25 Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
26 To the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise new arguments in the
27 Objections, the Court declines to formally address these belatedly-asserted
28
ase 2:21-cv-07403-SPG-JDE Document 25 Filed 02/01/23 Page2of2 Page ID#:65
1 allegations. A district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider
2 evidence or claims presented for the first time in objections to a report and
3 recommendation. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002); see
4 || also United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). Importantly,
5 || Petitioner is represented by counsel in this social security matter and his new
6 arguments are not novel, factors that weigh against the Court’s review of tardy
7 arguments. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1231 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court
8 || abuses its discretion when it fails to consider new and “novel” arguments
? presented by a pro se habeas petitioner in objecting to a magistrate judges report
10 and recommendation). Nevertheless, the Court has considered all of Plaintiffs
i argument as presented in the Objections and find they lack merit.
2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and dismissing this matter
‘4 with prejudice.
15
16
17 ||Dated: February 1, 2023
6 H-———
19 SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT
20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28