Tran v. Clark County Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 10, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05827
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 TAM TRAN, CASE NO 3:22-cv-05827-BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 CLARK COUNTY COURT, 11 Defendant. 12 13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Fricke’s Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. 4, recommending that the court deny pro se Plaintiff 15 Tam Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and dismiss the matter 16 without prejudice. Tran has not objected to the R&R. 17 Judge Fricke concluded that Tran’s claims are facially time-barred, as the DUI 18 arrest of which he complains occurred more than 10 years ago, he has not named a 19 “person” as a § 1983 or Bivens defendant, and he has otherwise failed to state a plausible 20 claim. 21 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed 22 disposition to which a party has properly objected. The district judge may accept, reject, 1 or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to 2 the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A proper objection 3 requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R.

4 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Objections 5 to an R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and 6 rejected by the magistrate judge. See, e.g., Fix v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., CV 7 16-41-M-DLC-JCL, 2017 WL 2721168, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 2017) (collecting 8 cases).

9 The Court agrees that Tran has failed to state a plausible claim. The R&R is 10 ADOPTED and the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. 11 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated this 10th day of January, 2023. A 14 15 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22