Tran v. Clark County Court

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA TAM TRAN, CASE NO 3:22-cv-05827-BHS Plaintiff, ORDER v. Defendant. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Fricke’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. 4, recommending that the court deny pro se Plaintiff Tam Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and dismiss the matter without prejudice. Tran has not objected to the R&R. Judge Fricke concluded that Tran’s claims are facially time-barred, as the DUI arrest of which he complains occurred more than 10 years ago, he has not named a “person” as a § 1983 or Bivens defendant, and he has otherwise failed to state a plausible claim. A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed disposition to which a party has properly objected. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Objections to an R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the magistrate judge. See, e.g., Fix v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., CV 16-41-M-DLC-JCL, 2017 WL 2721168, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 2017) (collecting cases).

The Court agrees that Tran has failed to state a plausible claim. The R&R is ADOPTED and the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. Dated this 10th day of January, 2023. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge