Zayas v. Department of Children Youth & Families

W.D. Washington

Zayas v. Department of Children Youth & Families

DecidedFebruary 8, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-00981

StatusUnknown

This text of Zayas v. Department of Children Youth & Families (Zayas v. Department of Children Youth & Families) 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

Zayas v. Department of Children Youth & Families, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 MYRIAM ZAYAS, CASE NO. C20-0981JLR-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 12 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, 13 YOUTH & FAMILIES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United 16 States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke (R&R (Dkt. # 38)) and the objections thereto 17 filed by Plaintiff Myriam Zayas (Obj. (Dkt. # 39)). Ms. Zayas is proceeding pro se in this 18 matter. (See generally Dkt.) Magistrate Judge Fricke recommends to the court that it 19 deny Ms. Zayas’s motion to join her son as a plaintiff in this matter. (See generally 20 R&R; see also Mot. (Dkt. # 33).) Defendants Shea Hopfauf and Jamia McRae 21 22 1 (collectively, “Defendants”)1 have responded to Ms. Zayas’s objections. (Resp. (Dkt. 2 # 45).)

3 The court referred Ms. Zayas’s motion for joinder to Magistrate Judge Fricke 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. MJR 3. (See Ref. 5 Order (Dkt. # 36).) Therefore, the court’s consideration of Ms. Zayas’s objections is 6 governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which provides that the district court 7 “must consider timely objections” to the Magistrate Judge’s decision on a nondispositive 8 pretrial matter and “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous.”

9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); (see Ref. Order at 1). Having considered Magistrate Judge Fricke’s 10 Report and Recommendation, Ms. Zayas’s objections, Defendants’ response, the relevant 11 portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court finds that Magistrate Judge 12 Fricke’s Report and Recommendation denying Ms. Zayas’s motion for joinder is not 13 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City & Cty. of

14 San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, the court DENIES Ms. 15 Zayas’s objections (Dkt. # 39); ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Fricke’s Report and 16 Recommendation (Dkt. # 38); and DENIES Ms. Zayas’s motion for joinder (Dkt. # 33). 17 // 18 //

19 // 20

21 1 Ms. Zayas voluntarily dismissed her claims with prejudice against Defendants Department of Children, Youth & Families; Kejana Black; and Lonette Dominguez. (See 10/19/20 Order (Dkt 22 # 30.) 1 Dated this 8th day of February, 2021. 2 A 3 4 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 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

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 MYRIAM ZAYAS, CASE NO. C20-0981JLR-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 12 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, 13 YOUTH & FAMILIES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United 16 States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke (R&R (Dkt. # 38)) and the objections thereto 17 filed by Plaintiff Myriam Zayas (Obj. (Dkt. # 39)). Ms. Zayas is proceeding pro se in this 18 matter. (See generally Dkt.) Magistrate Judge Fricke recommends to the court that it 19 deny Ms. Zayas’s motion to join her son as a plaintiff in this matter. (See generally 20 R&R; see also Mot. (Dkt. # 33).) Defendants Shea Hopfauf and Jamia McRae 21 22 1 (collectively, “Defendants”)1 have responded to Ms. Zayas’s objections. (Resp. (Dkt. 2 # 45).)

3 The court referred Ms. Zayas’s motion for joinder to Magistrate Judge Fricke 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. MJR 3. (See Ref. 5 Order (Dkt. # 36).) Therefore, the court’s consideration of Ms. Zayas’s objections is 6 governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which provides that the district court 7 “must consider timely objections” to the Magistrate Judge’s decision on a nondispositive 8 pretrial matter and “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous.”

9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); (see Ref. Order at 1). Having considered Magistrate Judge Fricke’s 10 Report and Recommendation, Ms. Zayas’s objections, Defendants’ response, the relevant 11 portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court finds that Magistrate Judge 12 Fricke’s Report and Recommendation denying Ms. Zayas’s motion for joinder is not 13 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City & Cty. of

14 San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, the court DENIES Ms. 15 Zayas’s objections (Dkt. # 39); ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Fricke’s Report and 16 Recommendation (Dkt. # 38); and DENIES Ms. Zayas’s motion for joinder (Dkt. # 33). 17 // 18 //

19 // 20

21 1 Ms. Zayas voluntarily dismissed her claims with prejudice against Defendants Department of Children, Youth & Families; Kejana Black; and Lonette Dominguez. (See 10/19/20 Order (Dkt 22 # 30.) 1 Dated this 8th day of February, 2021. 2 A 3 4 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zayas v. Department of Children Youth & Families, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zayas-v-department-of-children-youth-families-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack