Scott v. Devos

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 RICHARD SCOTT, Case No. 3:25-cv-05026-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 RECOMMENDATION v. 10 KEITH DEVOS, et al., 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Michelle 15 L.Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, any objections or responses to that, and the 16 remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: 17 (1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in part. 18 a. Mr. Scott has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. After 19 the Report and Recommendation was filed, Mr. Scott filed two additional 20 motions—a motion for protective order (Dkt. 24) and a motion for joinder of 21 parties (Dkt. 25). Neither motion has merit, nor can either motion reasonably 22 be construed as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Nonetheless, 23 the Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 24 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 2 Cir. 2003) (en banc). 3 b. The Court agrees with and adopts the conclusions in the Report and

4 Recommendation that Mr. Scott’s complaint fails to state a claim, that further 5 amendment would be futile, that the complaint should be dismissed, and that 6 Mr. Scott’s pending motions should be denied. 7 c. After the Report and Recommendation was filed, however, Mr. Scott filed a 8 document titled “Notice of 42b Withdrawal.” Dkt. 26. The document states: 9 “Come now Plaintiff 77yr old Scott with his noti[c]e of withdrawal under 42b 10 of the above capitioned [sic] complaint.” Id. at 1. Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedure 42 refers to consolidation or separation of trials. Rule 41, however, 12 allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action before the opposing party

13 serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. 14 P. 41(a)(1)(A). Although it is not entirely clear that this is what Mr. Scott 15 intended to do, because he is proceeding pro se, and out of an abundance of 16 caution, the Court will dismiss his complaint without prejudice, as it would be 17 through a voluntary dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). 18 (2) This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 19 (3) All pending motions are denied. 20 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, to 21 any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address, and to the Honorable Michelle L. 22 Peterson.

23 24 l Dated this 2nd day of April, 2025. ; Lag 3 Tiffany. Cartwright United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24