Blevins v. Jacquez

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 1, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00485
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

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

9 10 SHONDOLYN BLEVINS, CASE NO. C20-0485JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 12 WARDEN JACQUEZ, 13 Respondent. 14

15 Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 16 Judge Michelle L. Peterson (R&R (Dkt. # 24)) and Petitioner Shondolyn Blevins’s 17 objections thereto (Obj. (Dkt. # 25)). Having reviewed those documents, the relevant 18 portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report and 19 Recommendation (Dkt. # 24), DENIES Ms. Blevins’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, 20 and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. 21 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 22 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must 1 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 2 objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 3 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4 The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which a 5 party makes a specific written objection. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 6 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must 7 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 8 made, but not otherwise.” Id.

9 The court has reviewed Ms. Blevins’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Pet. (Dkt. 10 # 7)), Respondent Warden Jacquez’s response (Resp. (Dkt. # 18)), the Report and 11 Recommendation, and Ms. Blevins’s objections. Ms. Blevins raises 11 objections, ten of 12 which do not raise any novel issue that was not addressed by Magistrate Judge Peterson’s 13 Report and Recommendation. (See Obj. at 2-6; R&R at 6-10.) Moreover, the court has

14 thoroughly examined the full record and finds Magistrate Judge Peterson’s reasoning 15 persuasive in light of the record. (See R&R.) Accordingly, the court independently 16 rejects the arguments that Ms. Blevins makes in her first 10 objections for the same 17 reasons that Magistrate Judge Peterson did. 18 Ms. Blevins’s last objection alleges that Magistrate Judge Peterson failed “to

19 address her claim regarding the denial of her witness.” (Obj. at 6.) However, Ms. 20 Blevins did not include that argument as a ground in her petition. (See Pet. at 3-5 (listing 21 grounds as lack of weapon as defined by disciplinary rule, denial of access to surveillance 22 video, refusal of staff assistance, retaliation by staff, and allegedly false statement by 1 staff).) “Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s 2 recommendation are deemed waived.” Williams v. Ryan, No. CV-18-00349-TUC-RM, 3 2019 WL 4750235, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2019) (quoting Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d

4 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the court finds 5 that this argument is waived. 6 For the foregoing reasons, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 7 (Dkt. # 24) in its entirety. Ms. Blevins’s federal habeas petition (Dkt. # 7) is DENIED, 8 and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

9 Dated this 1st day of June, 2021. 10 A 11 12 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22