Simpson v. Bird

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MICHAEL D. SIMPSON, CASE NO. C24-5832 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 SCOTT BIRD and TJ MARTIN, 11 Defendants. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 4, recommending the Court deny pro se 15 plaintiff Michael Simpson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, supported 16 by his proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 3, and dismiss the case for failure to state a 17 plausible claim. 18 Simpson’s claims arise from the permanent suspension of his fishing license under 19 RCW 77.15.670. Simpson alleges that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 20 (WDFW) criminal justice liaison Bird represented the agency at Simpson’s suspension 21 hearing, and Administrative Law Judge Martin presided over it. Simpson appeared pro 22 se. His license was permanently suspended. He purports to sue Martin and Bird for 1 accusing him of a crime, denying him counsel, finding him guilty without a jury, and 2 punishing him without jurisdiction. He claims the hearing and the suspension were “ultra

3 vires” though he also alleges the defendants acted in their official capacities. See Dkt. 3 at 4 9, 10. 5 The R&R concludes that notwithstanding Simpson’s allegations, Martin is entitled 6 to absolute judicial immunity, and that Bird is entitled to absolute prosecutorial 7 immunity, for their conduct in the suspension proceeding and hearing. It concludes that 8 Simpson has failed to state a plausible claim and that he cannot amend his complaint

9 again cure this defect. It recommends dismissal without prejudice and without leave to 10 further amend. Dkt. 4 at 6–7. Simpson objects to the R&R, arguing that both defendants 11 acted without jurisdiction in violation of the Constitution, and are not entitled to 12 immunity. Dkt. 5. 13 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed

14 disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion 15 of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district 16 judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 17 evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 72(b)(3).

19 A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings 20 and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In providing for a de novo 21 determination, Congress “intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the 22 exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings 1 and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal 2 quotation marks omitted). Thus, the district court is required only to indicate that it

3 reviewed the record de novo and found no merit to the objections in order to summarily 4 adopt the R&R’s analysis. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). The 5 district court is not obligated to “expressly address” every objection. Id. at 437. 6 Simpson has not demonstrated that the R&R’s recommended dismissal was clearly 7 erroneous or contrary to law. The R&R is ADOPTED. Simpson’s application to proceed 8 in forma pauperis is DENIED. Simpson’s claims against Martin and Bird are

9 DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend. 10 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated this 16th day of January, 2025. A 13 14 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 15 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22