Williams v. Sinclair

] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE || JAMES ANTHONY WILLIAMS, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C19-1584-BJR 10 V. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFEF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN || STEPHEN SINCLAIR, ef al., FORMA PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE 12 Defendants.

14 Present before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable || Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has reviewed the complaint, || the R&R, Plaintiff Williams’ objection (Dkt. No. 7), and the remaining record. The R&R || recommends that Williams be denied in forma pauperis status because he is ineligible for it as a || “three-strike” litigant. This refers to the law that a prisoner “[i]Jn no event” can file in forma || pauperis when he or she has on three or more prior occasions filed civil suits in the jurisdiction || that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief can be || granted, absent imminent danger or physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f). In his filed objections ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - | || to the R&R, Williams does not object to or dispute the R&R’s conclusion that he is ineligible for || in forma pauperis status, and instead focused on other matters.

3 When a party files specific and properly filed written objections to an R&R, the district || court must review the Magistrate Judge’s findings de novo. United States v. Raddatz, 447 US.

5 || 667, 673 (1980); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A general objection to the entirety of a magistrate’s report 6 the same effects as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human || Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). The court in Howard explained further that when no || specific objection is made, 9 [t]he district court’s attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless. The functions of the 10 district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial 11 resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act. We would hardly countenance an appellant’s brief simply 12 objecting to the district court’s determination without explaining the source of the error. We should not permit appellants to do the same to the district court reviewing 13 the magistrate’s report.

14 Here, since there is no objection to or dispute about the R&R’s finding that Williams is || ineligible to file in forma pauperis, the Court will adopt the R&R, which is focused specifically || on that issue. This does not address merits of Williams sustaining his suit as he can still pursue || his case after paying the necessary filing fee.

18 The Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 19 (1) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is approved and adopted.

20 (2) Plaintiff's application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 4) is || DENIED.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 2 1 (3) Plaintiff is directed to pay the $400 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date |}on which this Order is signed. Failure to timely submit the requisite filing fee will result in |} immediate termination of this action.

4 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable || Michelle L. Peterson.

6 DATED this 12th day of December, 2019. ? ; oh BARBARA J. oa EIN 9 United States District Judge 1] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - 3