Mallory v. Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA AMBER MALLORY, A.J.M., A.J.J.W., CASE NO. C24-5135 BHS et al., ORDER Plaintiffs, v. D.C.F.Y., et al., Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Theresa Fricke’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 8, recommending the Court deny pro se plaintiff Amber Mallory’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss her claim without prejudice and without leave to amend, for failure to state a plausible claim and for failure to respond to an Order to Show Cause. A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 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 proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In providing for a de novo determination, Congress “intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the district court is required only to indicate that it

reviewed the record de novo and found no merit to the objections in order to summarily adopt the R&R’s analysis. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). The district court is not obligated to “expressly address” every objection. Id. at 437. Mallory has not objected to the R&R, and as such she has not established that the R&R was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. She has failed to state a plausible claim

and she did not respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. The R&R, Dkt. 8, is ADOPTED. Mallory’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 6, is DENIED. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.

Dated this 20th day of June, 2024. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge