Hudson v. Andrewjeski

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MICHAEL SAMUEL HUDSON, JR., Case No. C21-5920-RSL-SKV

Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Respondent. The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 4), respondent’s answer to the petition (Dkt. # 7), petitioner’s response to respondent’s answer (Dkt. # 9), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan (Dkt. # 14), petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 15),1 and the remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 14) is approved and adopted. (2) Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 4) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 1 The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Vaughan’s recommendations de novo in light of petitioner’s objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). However, as petitioner’s objections simply reargue issues raised in his initial petition and response, the Court finds they were adequately addressed by Judge Vaughan’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the Court has thoroughly examined the record before it and finds Judge Vaughan’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. (3) In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for Respondent, and to the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan. DATED this 30th day of November, 2022. A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge