Lee v. Andrewjeski

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 17, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05576
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MICHAEL KALAMI LEE, CASE NO. C23-5576 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 MELISSA ANDREWJESKI, 11 Respondent. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 24, recommending the Court deny pro se 15 petitioner Michael Kalami Lee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, dismiss the case, and 16 decline to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Lee pled guilty 17 to two counts of first degree rape of a child in 2005. He did not appeal, and he remains in 18 prison. The R&R concludes that Lee’s § 2254 petition is time-barred. Dkt. 24 (citing 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254(d)’s one year limitations period). 20 Lee objects to the R&R, Dkt. 25, but he does not address the one year time limit or 21 explain why it does not apply. He argues that he is entitled to a certificate of appealability 22 because he has raised serious constitutional issues. 1 “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 2 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or

3 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 4 magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party properly objects 5 when the party files “specific written objections” to the report and recommendation as 6 required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). 7 “[I]n providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress intended to permit 8 whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to

9 place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” United States v. 10 Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, 11 when a district court adopts a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court is 12 required to merely “indicate[] that it reviewed the record de novo, found no merit 13 to . . . [the] objections, and summarily adopt[] the magistrate judge’s analysis in [the]

14 report and recommendation.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). 15 In so doing, district courts are “not obligated to explicitly address [the] objections.” Id. at 16 437. 17 The R&R is ADOPTED and Lee’s § 2254 petition is DENIED. The Court will 18 NOT issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The matter is

19 DISMISSED. 20 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 \\ 1 Dated this 17th day of November, 2023. A 2 3 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22