Lloyd v. Buzell

Opinion

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

resolution of Defendants’ motion. The R&R, Dkt. 119, is ADOPTED, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 78, is GRANTED, Lloyd’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for the purposes of appeal, and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. Dated this 29th day of March, 2022. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge