Card v. Brown

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05213
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 TONY LAMAR CARD, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05213-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 4) 13 NICHOLAS W. BROWN, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the 17 Honorable Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. (Dkt. No. 4.) The R&R recommends that 18 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) be denied under 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim. (Id. at 2–4.) The 20 R&R gave Plaintiff 14 days to file objections. (Id. at 5.) The day before the deadline, Plaintiff 21 filed a “Claim Against Unlawful Action” alleging that Judge Fricke, the undersigned, and other 22 judges were engaged in an unlawful conspiracy against him, including copies of orders 23 dismissing complaints in this and other cases. (See Dkt. No. 5.) After the deadline, Plaintiff 24 1 subsequently filed a second “Claim Against Unlawful Action” and a “Judicial Notice and 2 Freedom of Information Act Request” making similar allegations. (See Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.) 3 A district court reviews de novo “those portions of the report or specified proposed 4 findings or recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see

5 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the 6 magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). Objections to an R&R must 7 be “specific.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Mere incorporation of arguments from the underlying 8 motions, without identifying “what portions of the R&R” the objecting party “considers to be 9 incorrect,” does not constitute a specific objection, Amaro v. Ryan, 2012 WL 12702, at *1 (D. 10 Ariz. Jan. 4, 2012), and therefore does not give rise to a court’s obligation to conduct a de novo 11 review, Brandon v. Department of Corr., 2021 WL 5937685, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2021). 12 “In the absence of a specific objection, the [C]ourt need only satisfy itself that there is no ‘clear 13 error’ on the face of the record before adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” 14 Venson v. Jackson, 2019 WL 1531271, at *1 (S.D. Cal. April 8, 2019).

15 Here, Plaintiff’s “Claim Against Unlawful Action” is not a proper objection and does not 16 trigger de novo review. Nonetheless, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed complaint and 17 reaches the same conclusion as the R&R, that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege any facts 18 that the Attorney General of Washington “unlawfully kidnapped” his son. (Dkt. No. 4 at 3, 19 quoting Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5.) 20 Therefore, the Court having considered the Report and Recommendation and the 21 remaining record de novo, does hereby find and order as follows: 22 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 23

24 1 (2) The Application to Proceed IFP (Dkt. 1) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED 2 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3 (3) The Clerk shall enter JUDGMENT and close this case. The Clerk is directed to 4 send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Hon. Theresa L. Fricke.

5 6 Dated this 6th day of May, 2025. 7 a 8 David G. Estudillo 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24