Rotchford v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 FRASER MCDONOUGH CASE NO. C24-5805JLR ROTCHFORD, 11 ORDER Petitioner, 12 v.

13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 14 Respondent. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s report and 17 recommendation, in which he recommends that the court dismiss pro se Petitioner Fraser 18 McDonough Rotchford’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus with 19 prejudice. (R&R (Dkt. # 4); see also Prop. Petition (Dkt. # 1).) Mr. Rotchford did not 20 file objections to the report and recommendation before the November 12, 2024 deadline. 21 (See R&R at 8 (setting deadline); see generally Dkt.) Having reviewed the report and 22 1 recommendation, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law, the court 2 ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s report and recommendation, DISMISSES Mr.

3 Rotchford’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and DENIES a certificate of appealability. 4 II. ANALYSIS 5 A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and 6 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court 7 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 8 by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the

9 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 10 if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 11 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 12 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida recommends that the court dismiss Mr. Rotchford’s 13 petition because (1) Mr. Rotchford previously filed a habeas petition challenging his

14 King County conviction, which the court dismissed as untimely and as presenting 15 unexhausted claims; (2) Mr. Rotchford’s claims are unexhausted; (3) the petition fails to 16 set forth any facts showing relief is warranted under § 2254; and (4) Mr. Rotchford has 17 neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. 18 (See R&R at 1-2.) Mr. Rotchford has not objected to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s

19 recommendation. (See generally Dkt.) The court has thoroughly examined the record 20 before it and finds Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s reasoning persuasive in light of that 21 record. The court has also independently reviewed Mr. Rotchford’s petition and agrees 22 with the reasoning and conclusions set forth in the report and recommendation. 1 Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation, DISMISSES Mr. 2 Rotchford’s habeas corpus petition, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.

3 III. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: 5 1. The court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 4) in its entirety; 6 2. The court DISMISSES Mr. Rotchford’s habeas corpus petition (Dkt. # 1) with 7 prejudice; 8 3. The court DENIES issuance of a certificate of appealability for the reasons set

9 forth in the report and recommendation (see R&R at 7); and 10 4. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Mr. Rotchford 11 and Magistrate Judge Tsuchida. 12 Dated this 15th day of November, 2024. 13 A 14 15 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22