Clark v. Bacon

W.D. Washington

Clark v. Bacon

DecidedJune 13, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00927

StatusUnknown

This text of Clark v. Bacon (Clark v. Bacon) 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

Clark v. Bacon, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 KIM C. CLARK, CASE NO. C23-0927 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 BACON, et al., 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 24, recommending the Court grant the 15 defendants’ summary judgment motion, Dkt. 20, and dismiss this case without prejudice. 16 Defendants’ summary judgment motion contends, and the R&R concludes, that 17 pro se prisoner plaintiff Kim Clark has not exhausted her administrative remedies under 18 the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Dkt. 24 at 7–9. 19 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed 20 disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion 21 of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district 22 judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 1 evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 72(b)(3).

3 A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings 4 and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In providing for a de novo 5 determination, Congress “intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the 6 exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings 7 and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal 8 quotation marks omitted).

9 Clark did not respond to the summary judgment motion, and she has not objected 10 to the R&R. Nor has she exhausted her administrative remedies. See Carrea v. 11 California, 551 F. App’x 368, 369 (9th Cir. 2014) (the proper remedy for failure to 12 exhaust is dismissal without prejudice). 13 The R&R is ADOPTED, defendants’ summary judgment motion is GRANTED

14 and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated this 13th day of June, 2024. A 17 18 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22

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

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 KIM C. CLARK, CASE NO. C23-0927 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 BACON, et al., 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 24, recommending the Court grant the 15 defendants’ summary judgment motion, Dkt. 20, and dismiss this case without prejudice. 16 Defendants’ summary judgment motion contends, and the R&R concludes, that 17 pro se prisoner plaintiff Kim Clark has not exhausted her administrative remedies under 18 the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Dkt. 24 at 7–9. 19 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed 20 disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion 21 of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district 22 judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 1 evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 72(b)(3).

3 A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings 4 and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In providing for a de novo 5 determination, Congress “intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the 6 exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings 7 and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal 8 quotation marks omitted).

9 Clark did not respond to the summary judgment motion, and she has not objected 10 to the R&R. Nor has she exhausted her administrative remedies. See Carrea v. 11 California, 551 F. App’x 368, 369 (9th Cir. 2014) (the proper remedy for failure to 12 exhaust is dismissal without prejudice). 13 The R&R is ADOPTED, defendants’ summary judgment motion is GRANTED

14 and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated this 13th day of June, 2024. A 17 18 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clark v. Bacon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-bacon-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack