Butsch v. Bennett

W.D. Washington

Butsch v. Bennett

DecidedApril 16, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00482

StatusUnknown

This text of Butsch v. Bennett (Butsch v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Butsch v. Bennett, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

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

9 10 CLAYTON E. BUTSCH, CASE NO. C24-0482JLR-BAT 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 JASON BENNETT, 13 Respondent. 14

15 Before the court are (1) pro se Petitioner Clayton E. Butsch’s motion for leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 1)) and (2) United States Magistrate 17 Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s report and recommendation recommending that the court deny 18 Mr. Butsch’s IFP motion (R&R (Dkt. # 4)).1 Having carefully reviewed the foregoing 19

20 1 Although the report and recommendation states that Mr. Butsch is permitted to file objections by no later than April 29, 2024 (see id. at 2), the Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff is not entitled to submit written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation 21 that IFP status should be denied, Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the court will not afford Mr. Butsch an opportunity to object to the instant report 22 and recommendation. 1 documents, the supporting materials, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the 2 report and recommendation (Dkt. # 4) and DENIES Mr. Butsch’s motion for leave to

3 proceed IFP (Dkt. # 1). Mr. Butsch shall pay the usual $5.00 filing fee by no later than 4 April 30, 2024. If he fails to do so, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice. 5 Dated this 16th day of April, 2024. 6 A 7 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

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

9 10 CLAYTON E. BUTSCH, CASE NO. C24-0482JLR-BAT 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 JASON BENNETT, 13 Respondent. 14

15 Before the court are (1) pro se Petitioner Clayton E. Butsch’s motion for leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 1)) and (2) United States Magistrate 17 Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s report and recommendation recommending that the court deny 18 Mr. Butsch’s IFP motion (R&R (Dkt. # 4)).1 Having carefully reviewed the foregoing 19

20 1 Although the report and recommendation states that Mr. Butsch is permitted to file objections by no later than April 29, 2024 (see id. at 2), the Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff is not entitled to submit written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation 21 that IFP status should be denied, Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the court will not afford Mr. Butsch an opportunity to object to the instant report 22 and recommendation. 1 documents, the supporting materials, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the 2 report and recommendation (Dkt. # 4) and DENIES Mr. Butsch’s motion for leave to

3 proceed IFP (Dkt. # 1). Mr. Butsch shall pay the usual $5.00 filing fee by no later than 4 April 30, 2024. If he fails to do so, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice. 5 Dated this 16th day of April, 2024. 6 A 7 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Butsch v. Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butsch-v-bennett-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack