Demos v. Inslee

W.D. Washington

Demos v. Inslee

DecidedNovember 18, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-05793

StatusUnknown

This text of Demos v. Inslee (Demos v. Inslee) 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

Demos v. Inslee, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

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. C22-5793-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 JAY INSLEE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 3) to the Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge 17 (Dkt. No. 2). Judge Christel’s R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s proposed complaint be 18 dismissed without prejudice for non-compliance with the 1992 Bar Order. (See Dkt. No. 2.) The 19 R&R summarizes the proposed complaint’s allegations, the Bar Order’s conditions, and 20 Plaintiff’s suits within this District. (See Dkt. No. 2 at 1–3.) The Court need not repeat that 21 information here. 22 Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R takes issue with the Bar Order and its conditions—not 23 the R&R’s interpretation of the Order. (See Dkt. No. 3.) This collateral attack of the Bar Order is 24 not responsive to the analysis or conclusions contained within the R&R and, therefore, does not 25 26 1 trigger this Court’s review of the R&R.1 2 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R (Dkt. No. 3) is OVERRULED; 4 2. The R&R (Dkt. No. 2) is ADOPTED and APPROVED; 5 3. The proposed complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 6 4. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED; and 7 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge 8 Christel. 9 DATED this 18th day of November 2022. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 1 A district court only reviews those portions of an R&R to which a party properly objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to 23 “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” 24 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). The court is not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. Said another way, for an objection to be proper, it 25 must point to specific error contained within the R&R. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Lemus, 2010 WL 2573748, slip op. at 1 (D. Ariz. 2010); see Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 26 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020).

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

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. C22-5793-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 JAY INSLEE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 3) to the Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge 17 (Dkt. No. 2). Judge Christel’s R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s proposed complaint be 18 dismissed without prejudice for non-compliance with the 1992 Bar Order. (See Dkt. No. 2.) The 19 R&R summarizes the proposed complaint’s allegations, the Bar Order’s conditions, and 20 Plaintiff’s suits within this District. (See Dkt. No. 2 at 1–3.) The Court need not repeat that 21 information here. 22 Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R takes issue with the Bar Order and its conditions—not 23 the R&R’s interpretation of the Order. (See Dkt. No. 3.) This collateral attack of the Bar Order is 24 not responsive to the analysis or conclusions contained within the R&R and, therefore, does not 25 26 1 trigger this Court’s review of the R&R.1 2 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R (Dkt. No. 3) is OVERRULED; 4 2. The R&R (Dkt. No. 2) is ADOPTED and APPROVED; 5 3. The proposed complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 6 4. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED; and 7 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge 8 Christel. 9 DATED this 18th day of November 2022. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 1 A district court only reviews those portions of an R&R to which a party properly objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to 23 “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” 24 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). The court is not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. Said another way, for an objection to be proper, it 25 must point to specific error contained within the R&R. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Lemus, 2010 WL 2573748, slip op. at 1 (D. Ariz. 2010); see Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 26 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Demos v. Inslee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demos-v-inslee-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack