Tran v. Hagenson

W.D. Washington

Tran v. Hagenson

DecidedJanuary 10, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-05922

StatusUnknown

This text of Tran v. Hagenson (Tran v. Hagenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tran v. Hagenson, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 TAM TRAN, CASE NO. C22-5922 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 JOHN P. HAGENSON, 11 Respondent. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s 14 thorough Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 4, recommending that this Court dismiss pro 15 se Plaintiff Tam Tran’s habeas petition and his petition to proceed in forma pauperis, 16 Dkt. 1, and dismiss this action without prejudice as duplicative of a similar (and pending) 17 habeas petition, Tran v. Clark County Court, No. 22-cv-5924 BHS. 18 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed 19 disposition to which a party has properly objected. The district judge may accept, reject, 20 or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to 21 the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A proper objection 22 requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. 1 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Objections 2 to an R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and

3 rejected by the magistrate judge. See, e.g., Fix v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., CV 4 16-41-M-DLC-JCL, 2017 WL 2721168, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 2017) (collecting 5 cases). Tran has not objected or otherwise responded to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. 6 The R&R is ADOPTED, Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, 7 is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Consistent with the 8 Magistrate Judge’s Order in Cause No. 22-cv-5924 BHS, Dkt. 4, Tran may file an

9 amended petition in Tran v. Clark County Court, No. 22-cv-5924 BHS. That case will be 10 Tran’s single habeas case. 11 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 12 Dated this 10th day of January, 2023. A 13 14 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 15 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 TAM TRAN, CASE NO. C22-5922 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 JOHN P. HAGENSON, 11 Respondent. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s 14 thorough Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 4, recommending that this Court dismiss pro 15 se Plaintiff Tam Tran’s habeas petition and his petition to proceed in forma pauperis, 16 Dkt. 1, and dismiss this action without prejudice as duplicative of a similar (and pending) 17 habeas petition, Tran v. Clark County Court, No. 22-cv-5924 BHS. 18 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed 19 disposition to which a party has properly objected. The district judge may accept, reject, 20 or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to 21 the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A proper objection 22 requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. 1 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Objections 2 to an R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and

3 rejected by the magistrate judge. See, e.g., Fix v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., CV 4 16-41-M-DLC-JCL, 2017 WL 2721168, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 2017) (collecting 5 cases). Tran has not objected or otherwise responded to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. 6 The R&R is ADOPTED, Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, 7 is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Consistent with the 8 Magistrate Judge’s Order in Cause No. 22-cv-5924 BHS, Dkt. 4, Tran may file an

9 amended petition in Tran v. Clark County Court, No. 22-cv-5924 BHS. That case will be 10 Tran’s single habeas case. 11 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 12 Dated this 10th day of January, 2023. A 13 14 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 15 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tran v. Hagenson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tran-v-hagenson-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack