Blakely v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 23, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05192
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 RALPH HOWARD BLAKELY, CASE NO. C21-5192JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United 17 States Magistrate Judge Michelle J. Peterson (R&R (Dkt. # 14)), and pro se Plaintiff 18 Ralph Howard Blakely’s objections thereto (Objections (Dkt. # 15)). Magistrate Judge 19 Peterson recommends that the court dismiss Mr. Blakely’s complaint pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (See generally 21 R&R.) Having carefully reviewed all of the foregoing, all other relevant documents, and 22 the governing law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 1 the court DISMISSES Mr. Blakely’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants Tomas 2 Fithian and Beth Lindenman with prejudice, and his claims against Brad Bowman and

3 Fernando Carranza without prejudice. 4 II. ANALYSIS

5 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 6 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must 7 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly 8 objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 9 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 10 The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which 11 specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 12 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review 13 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

14 not otherwise.” Id. Because Mr. Blakely is proceeding pro se, this court must interpret 15 his complaint and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 16 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 The court has reviewed Mr. Blakely’s objections, and has considered Magistrate 18 Judge Peterson’s recommendations de novo in light of those objections. Mr. Blakely’s

19 objections do not raise any novel issues that were not addressed by Magistrate Judge 20 Peterson’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the court has thoroughly examined 21 the record before it and finds Magistrate Judge Peterson’s reasoning persuasive in light of 22 that record. The court independently finds that Mr. Blakely’s amended complaint (Am. 1 Compl. (Dkt. # 13)) fails to state a claim for the same reasons set forth by Magistrate 2 Judge Peterson in her Report and Recommendation.

3 III. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: 5 (1) The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 14) in its 6 entirety. 7 (2) Mr. Blakely’s amended complaint (Dkt. # 13) and this action are DISMISSED 8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief

9 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This dismissal is with prejudice as to Defendants Tomas Fithian 10 and Beth Lindenman, and without prejudice as to Defendants Brad Bowman and 11 Fernando Carranza. 12 (3) The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this Order to Mr. Blakely and 13 to Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson.

14 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2021. 15 A 16 17 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22