Blevins v. Jacquez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 SHONDOLYN BLEVINS, CASE NO. C20-0485JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION WARDEN JACQUEZ, Respondent.

15 Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson (R&R (Dkt. # 24)) and Petitioner Shondolyn Blevins’s objections thereto (Obj. (Dkt. # 25)). Having reviewed those documents, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 24), DENIES Ms. Blevins’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and DISMISSES this action with prejudice.

21 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 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).

4 The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which a party makes a specific written objection. 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 not otherwise.” Id. 9 The court has reviewed Ms. Blevins’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Pet. (Dkt.

10 # 7)), Respondent Warden Jacquez’s response (Resp. (Dkt. # 18)), the Report and Recommendation, and Ms. Blevins’s objections. Ms. Blevins raises 11 objections, ten of which do not raise any novel issue that was not addressed by Magistrate Judge Peterson’s Report and Recommendation. (See Obj. at 2-6; R&R at 6-10.) Moreover, the court has thoroughly examined the full record and finds Magistrate Judge Peterson’s reasoning persuasive in light of the record. (See R&R.) Accordingly, the court independently rejects the arguments that Ms. Blevins makes in her first 10 objections for the same reasons that Magistrate Judge Peterson did.

18 Ms. Blevins’s last objection alleges that Magistrate Judge Peterson failed “to address her claim regarding the denial of her witness.” (Obj. at 6.) However, Ms. Blevins did not include that argument as a ground in her petition. (See Pet. at 3-5 (listing grounds as lack of weapon as defined by disciplinary rule, denial of access to surveillance video, refusal of staff assistance, retaliation by staff, and allegedly false statement by staff).) “Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation are deemed waived.” Williams v. Ryan, No. CV-18-00349-TUC-RM, 2019 WL 4750235, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2019) (quoting Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 4 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the court finds that this argument is waived.

6 For the foregoing reasons, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 24) in its entirety. Ms. Blevins’s federal habeas petition (Dkt. # 7) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

9 Dated this 1st day of June, 2021.

A 12 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge