Crews v. Perkins

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ROBERT LORENZA CREWS, CASE NO. C24-5714 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 JEFFEREY PERKINS, 11 Respondent. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 15, recommending the Court deny pro se 15 petitioner Robert Crews’ § 2254 habeas petition as time-barred, deny him a § 2253 16 certificate of appealability, and dismiss the case with prejudice. 17 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed 18 disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion 19 of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district 20 judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 21 evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 72(b)(3). 1 A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings 2 and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In providing for a de novo

3 determination, Congress “intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the 4 exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings 5 and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal 6 quotation marks omitted). Thus, the district court is required only to indicate that it 7 reviewed the record de novo and found no merit to the objections in order to summarily 8 adopt the R&R’s analysis. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). The

9 district court is not obligated to “expressly address” every objection. Id. at 437. 10 Crews has objected to the R&R. Dkt. 16. He asserts that he did not discover the 11 “fact” that his constitutional rights were violated until February 2024, making his claim 12 timely. Id. at 2. He also asserts that because the State did not provide a “full and fair 13 review” of his claims, it “does not qualify” for the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death

14 Penalty Act (AEDPA) statute of limitations. Id. 15 These arguments are without merit. The R&R’s recommended disposition of 16 Crews’ habeas petition is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The R&R is 17 therefore ADOPTED. Crews’ § 2254 habeas petition is untimely, and it is DENIED. The 18 Court will NOT issue a certificate of appealability for the reasons outlined in the R&R,

19 and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 20 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 // 1 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2025. A 2 3 BBEENNJJAAMMIINN HH.. SSEETTTTLLEE 4 UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggee

6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22