Littlefield v. Hubbs

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 JOSEPH TYLER LITTLEFIELD,

9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-790-JHC

10 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 11 CHERYL STRANGE, et al.,

12 Defendants.

14 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 61) of the Honorable 15 S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 62), and the 16 remaining record, hereby ORDERS: 17 (1) The Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted. The Court has 18 reviewed the record de novo and finds no merit to Plaintiff’s objections. United States v. Ramos, 19 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). 20 (2) Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Dkt. 58) and this action are DISMISSED 21 without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 22 be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 23 (3) Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint (Dkt. 55) is DENIED as moot. 1 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge 2 |} Vaughan. 3 DATED this 26th day of December, 2024. 4 5 fpeks _ JOHN H. CHUN 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION PAGE - 2