Roberson v. Bennett

W.D. Washington

Roberson v. Bennett

DecidedMay 10, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00241

StatusUnknown

This text of Roberson v. Bennett (Roberson v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberson v. Bennett, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 NEIL JAMES ROBERSON, CASE NO. C24-0241-JCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 JASON BENNETT, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s objections (Dkt. No. 6) to the Report 16 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate 17 Judge (Dkt. No. 5). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court 18 OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES this matter without 19 prejudice for the reasons explained herein. 20 In an order to show cause, Judge Fricke ordered Petitioner to explain why his § 2254 21 habeas petition should not be dismissed prior to service for failure to demonstrate the exhaustion 22 of state remedies. (See Dkt. No. 4 at 2–3.) Petitioner did not respond to that order, and Judge 23 Fricke then recommended to this Court that it dismiss this matter without prejudice. (See Dkt. 24 No. 5 at 1–2.) Petitioner responded to the R&R with a litany of objections. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1– 25 26 1 3.)1 But none of the objections address the key issue Judge Fricke raised—Petitioner’s failure to 2 demonstrate exhaustion of his state remedies. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1–3.) They are, therefore, 3 ineffective. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing 4 the requirements for an effective objection). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (Dkt. No. 6), 6 ADOPTS Judge Fricke’s R&R (Dkt. No. 5), and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. 7 8 DATED this 10th day of May 2024. A 9 10 11 John C. Coughenour 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 The Court reviews de novo those portions of a R&R to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” 26 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 NEIL JAMES ROBERSON, CASE NO. C24-0241-JCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 JASON BENNETT, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s objections (Dkt. No. 6) to the Report 16 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate 17 Judge (Dkt. No. 5). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court 18 OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES this matter without 19 prejudice for the reasons explained herein. 20 In an order to show cause, Judge Fricke ordered Petitioner to explain why his § 2254 21 habeas petition should not be dismissed prior to service for failure to demonstrate the exhaustion 22 of state remedies. (See Dkt. No. 4 at 2–3.) Petitioner did not respond to that order, and Judge 23 Fricke then recommended to this Court that it dismiss this matter without prejudice. (See Dkt. 24 No. 5 at 1–2.) Petitioner responded to the R&R with a litany of objections. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1– 25 26 1 3.)1 But none of the objections address the key issue Judge Fricke raised—Petitioner’s failure to 2 demonstrate exhaustion of his state remedies. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1–3.) They are, therefore, 3 ineffective. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing 4 the requirements for an effective objection). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (Dkt. No. 6), 6 ADOPTS Judge Fricke’s R&R (Dkt. No. 5), and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. 7 8 DATED this 10th day of May 2024. A 9 10 11 John C. Coughenour 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 The Court reviews de novo those portions of a R&R to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” 26 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roberson v. Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-bennett-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack