Bell v. King County

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 WARREN E. BELL, CASE NO. C22-0387-JCC-TLF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 KING COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 70) to the Report 16 and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 69) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States 17 Magistrate Judge, recommending this Court GRANT Defendants’ summary judgement motion, 18 (Dkt. No. 39), DENY Plaintiff’s summary judgement motion, (Dkt. No. 19), and DISMISS all 19 Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Having thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s objections and the 20 relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES the objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and 21 DISMISSES the case with prejudice, for the reasons explained herein. 22 The facts of this case are outlined in Judge Fricke’s R&R and the Court will not repeat 23 them here. (Dkt. No. 69 at 2–4.) Judge Fricke found that when the facts are viewed in a light 24 most favorable to the Plaintiff, they do not show that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief. (Id. at 7- 25 26.) Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R do not trigger this Court’s review, because they are 26 1 conclusory, and summaries of arguments previously presented.1 2 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS: 3 (1) Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 70) are OVERRULED. 4 (2) The R&R (Dkt. No. 69) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 5 (3) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED. 6 (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED. 7 (5) Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 8 (6) The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively CLOSE this matter and send copies 9 of this order to Plaintiff and to Judge Fricke. 10 DATED this 10th day of May 2023. 11 A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 1 A district reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s R&R to which a party 21 properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party properly objects when they file “specific written objections” to the R&R as required under Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 72(b)(2). Objections are required to enable the court to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 23 140, 147 (1985). The court is not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 24 objection.” Id. at 149. Said another way, for an objection to be proper, it must point to specific error contained within the R&R. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Lemus, 2010 WL 2573748, slip 25 op. at 1 (D. Ariz. 2010); see Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020). 26