Lampe v. Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention

W.D. Washington

Lampe v. Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention

DecidedDecember 14, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01185

StatusUnknown

This text of Lampe v. Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention (Lampe v. Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention) 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

Lampe v. Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 COREY M. LAMPE, SR., CASE NO. C20-1185JLR-MAT 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 12 DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND 13 JUVENILE DETENTION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 16 of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler (R&R (Dkt. # 7)). Having 17 carefully reviewed the foregoing, all other relevant documents, and the governing law, 18 the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 7) and DISMISSES Mr. 19 Lampe’s complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28.U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 20 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 21 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must 22 1 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly 2 objected to.” Id. The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and 3 recommendation to which specific written objection is made. United States v.

4 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). When no objections are 5 filed, the court need not review de novo the report and recommendation. Wang v. 6 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). 7 Here, no party has objected to Magistrate Judge Theiler’s R&R. (See Dkt.) Thus, 8 the court need not review de novo the report and recommendation. See Wang, 416 F.3d

9 at 1000. Moreover, the court has examined the record before it, including Magistrate 10 Judge Theiler’s R&R, and finds the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning persuasive in light of 11 that record. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. The Clerk shall 12 count this dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is DIRECTED to send 13 copies of this Order to the parties and to Magistrate Judge Theiler.

14 Dated this 14th day of December, 2020. 15 A 16 17 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22

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

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 COREY M. LAMPE, SR., CASE NO. C20-1185JLR-MAT 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 12 DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND 13 JUVENILE DETENTION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 16 of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler (R&R (Dkt. # 7)). Having 17 carefully reviewed the foregoing, all other relevant documents, and the governing law, 18 the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 7) and DISMISSES Mr. 19 Lampe’s complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28.U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 20 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 21 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must 22 1 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly 2 objected to.” Id. The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and 3 recommendation to which specific written objection is made. United States v.

4 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). When no objections are 5 filed, the court need not review de novo the report and recommendation. Wang v. 6 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). 7 Here, no party has objected to Magistrate Judge Theiler’s R&R. (See Dkt.) Thus, 8 the court need not review de novo the report and recommendation. See Wang, 416 F.3d

9 at 1000. Moreover, the court has examined the record before it, including Magistrate 10 Judge Theiler’s R&R, and finds the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning persuasive in light of 11 that record. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. The Clerk shall 12 count this dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is DIRECTED to send 13 copies of this Order to the parties and to Magistrate Judge Theiler.

14 Dated this 14th day of December, 2020. 15 A 16 17 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lampe v. Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lampe-v-department-of-adult-and-juvenile-detention-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack