Lloyd v. Buzell

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 29, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-06239
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 LARRY LLOYD, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-6239-BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 v. AND RECOMMENDATION 10 SHAWN BUZELL, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David Christel’s Report 14 and Recommendation, Dkt. 119, recommending that the Court Grant Defendants’ Motion 15 for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 78, and close the case. 16 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed 17 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or 18 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 19 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A proper objection requires 20 specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. United 21 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Objections to a 22 R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected 1 by the magistrate judge. See, e.g., Fix v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., CV 16–41– 2 M–DLC–JCL, 2017 WL 2721168, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 2017) (collecting cases). 3 Lloyd has not timely objected to the Report and Recommendation’s proposed

4 resolution of Defendants’ motion. The R&R, Dkt. 119, is ADOPTED, the Defendants’ 5 Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 78, is GRANTED, Lloyd’s in forma pauperis status 6 is REVOKED for the purposes of appeal, and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 7 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 8 Dated this 29th day of March, 2022. A 9 10 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22