Fred C. Myers, Jr. v. The Tulalip Tribes

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON FRED C. MYERS, JR., CASE NO. C26-0560-JCC Petitioner, ORDER v. Respondent.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Hon. Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 11). The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the petition in this matter without prejudice. (See generally id.). Petitioner’s subsequent filing (Dkt. Nos. 12), which he described as an “objection” to Judge Fricke’s recommendation, is not responsive to the analysis or conclusions contained within the R&R and, therefore, does not trigger this Court’s review of the R&R.1

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 “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” 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 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); Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 11), DENIES the objections (Dkt. No. 12) as unresponsive, and DISMISSES without prejudice the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 4) in this matter. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Petitioner and Judge Fricke. DATED this 18th day of August 2026. A John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE