Robinson v. O'Ban

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT g WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 JAMES JOE ROBINSON, JR., CASE NO. C19-1569JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 3 THOMAS C. O'BAN, et al, i4 Defendants.

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States |i Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida recommending that Plaintiff's complaint be || dismissed (R&R (Dkt. # 3)), and Plaintiff’s objections thereto (Objections (Dkt. # 4)).

19 || Having carefully reviewed the foregoing, along with all other relevant documents and the || governing law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 3) and || DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.

ORDER - 1 1 Il. STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 3 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must || determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly || objected to.” Id, “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

7 || The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which || specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 || (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review || the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but 11 otherwise.” /d, Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this court must interpret his || complaint and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 13 (9th Cir. 2003).

14 mH. DISCUSSION 15 Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation’s finding that: 16 A civil rights complaint under §1983 cannot proceed when “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction 17 or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been 18 invalidated.” Heck v, Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

19 || (R&R at 2; see also Objection at 4.) This is a correct statement of the law. Chief || Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s reliance on this statement does not impeach the conclusion || of the Report and Recommendation.

ORDER - 2 Plaintiffs objection does not raise any novel issues that were not addressed by || Chief Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation. (See generally R&R.) || Moreover, the court has thoroughly examined the record before it and finds Chief || Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. Plaintiff |] essentially recycles a number of arguments--some that were included in the proposed || complaint and others that Chief Magistrate Judge Tsuchida identified independently— || that Chief Magistrate Judge Tsuchida thoroughly addressed in the Report and || Recommendation. (See generally Objection; R&R.) The court independently rejects || Plaintiff's arguments for the same reasons as Chief Magistrate Judge Tsuchida.

10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS as follows: 12 (1) The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 3) in its entirety; 13 (2) This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiff's application to || proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED as moot; 15 (3) The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to || Chief Magistrate Judge Tsuchida.

17 Dated this a day of October, 2019.

JAMES L| ROBART 19 United Stdtes District Judge ORDER -3