Rogers v. Weaver

W.D. Washington

Rogers v. Weaver

DecidedFebruary 5, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-01160

StatusUnknown

This text of Rogers v. Weaver (Rogers v. Weaver) 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

Rogers v. Weaver, (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 RAY CLARENCE ROGERS, CASE NO. C23-1160-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 WEAVER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 30) and 16 Defendants’ objections (Dkt. No. 29) to the Amended Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 the Honorable Grady J. Leupold, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 27). Having 18 thoroughly considered the R&R and the relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES the 19 objections and ADOPTS the Amended R&R for the reasons stated herein. 20 A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s 21 R&R to which a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party 22 properly objects when he or she files “specific written objections” to the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 72(b)(2). In contrast, general objections or summaries of arguments previously presented have 24 the same effect as no objection at all since they do not focus the Court’s attention on any specific 25 issues for review. Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 26 1991); see also Garvey v. Uttecht, 2020 WL 5946157, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2020). 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 27) is ADOPTED. 3 2. Defendants’ objections (Dkt. No. 29) are OVERRULED. 4 3. Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 30) are OVERRULED. 5 4. Plaintiff’s claims against King County, the Department of Adult and Juvenile 6 Detention, and Allen Nance are dismissed with prejudice. 7 5. Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment claim against Sergeant Weaver is dismissed without 8 prejudice and with leave to amend. Plaintiff is INSTRUCTED to cure his complaint 9 as to this issue no later than February 19, 2024. 10 6. Defendants’ motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation 11 claim. 12 7. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable 13 Grady J. Leupold. 14 15 DATED this 5th day of February 2024. A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

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 RAY CLARENCE ROGERS, CASE NO. C23-1160-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 WEAVER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 30) and 16 Defendants’ objections (Dkt. No. 29) to the Amended Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 the Honorable Grady J. Leupold, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 27). Having 18 thoroughly considered the R&R and the relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES the 19 objections and ADOPTS the Amended R&R for the reasons stated herein. 20 A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s 21 R&R to which a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party 22 properly objects when he or she files “specific written objections” to the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 72(b)(2). In contrast, general objections or summaries of arguments previously presented have 24 the same effect as no objection at all since they do not focus the Court’s attention on any specific 25 issues for review. Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 26 1991); see also Garvey v. Uttecht, 2020 WL 5946157, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2020). 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 27) is ADOPTED. 3 2. Defendants’ objections (Dkt. No. 29) are OVERRULED. 4 3. Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 30) are OVERRULED. 5 4. Plaintiff’s claims against King County, the Department of Adult and Juvenile 6 Detention, and Allen Nance are dismissed with prejudice. 7 5. Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment claim against Sergeant Weaver is dismissed without 8 prejudice and with leave to amend. Plaintiff is INSTRUCTED to cure his complaint 9 as to this issue no later than February 19, 2024. 10 6. Defendants’ motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation 11 claim. 12 7. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable 13 Grady J. Leupold. 14 15 DATED this 5th day of February 2024. A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rogers v. Weaver, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-weaver-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack