Demos v. Immett

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 18, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00795
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., CASE NO. C22-0795-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 JEFFREY IMMETT, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff John Demos’s objections (Dkt. No. 3) to 16 the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 2) of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, 17 Chief United States Magistrate Judge, recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s proposed action 18 and denial of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) motion. Having thoroughly considered 19 Plaintiff’s objection and the relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES the objection, 20 ADOPTS the R&R, DISMISSES the case without prejudice, and DENIES as moot the motion 21 for IFP status. 22 Plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP in his lawsuit asserting that Defendants—the CEOs of three 23 large, publicly traded corporations—breached an oral contract with him, causing him economic 24 loss and mental, emotional, and psychological harm. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 9–10.) However, as Judge 25 Creatura notes, Plaintiff is a bar-order litigant who has already surpassed his annual limit of three 26 IFP applications and proposed actions. (Dkt. No. 2 at 2 (citing cases).) Judge Creatura also 1 reports that Plaintiff’s proposed complaint is “patently frivolous” and must be dismissed by the 2 Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 2 at 2.) Judge Creatura thus recommends 3 Plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice and his IFP motion be denied as moot. (Dkt. 4 No. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff objects. (Dkt. No. 3.) 5 A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s 6 R&R to which a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party 7 properly objects when they file “specific written objections” to the R&R as required under 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). Because this requires specific objections, general 9 objections or repeating prior arguments is tantamount to no objection at all. Howard v. Sec’y of 10 Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). And while pro se litigants are held 11 to a more lenient standard, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), they are not excused 12 from making proper objections, see, e.g., Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 13 1986). Accordingly, de novo review is not required when a party fails to direct the Court to a 14 specific error in the R&R. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Lemus, 2010 WL 2573748, slip op. at 1 15 (D. Ariz. 2010). 16 Plaintiff fails to properly object to Judge Creatura’s R&R. His arguments are 17 incomprehensible, and he fails to identify any specific errors in the R&R, instead making conclusory 18 statements that have little to do with Judge Creatura’s legal determinations. Plaintiff fails to 19 demonstrate any issues with Judge Creatura’s analysis whatsoever. (See generally Dkt. No. 3.) 20 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 21 (1) Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 3) are OVERRULED. 22 (2) The R&R (Dkt. No. 2) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 23 (3) Plaintiff’s IPF motion (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED as moot. 24 (4) Plaintiff’s proposed action (Dkt. No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 25 (5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively CLOSE this matter and send copies 26 of this order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable J. Richard Creatura. 1 DATED this 18th day of July 2022. 2 3 4 A 5 6 7 John C. Coughenour 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26