Warren v. Ray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 JERRMELL RASHADD WARREN, CASE NO. C20-6136JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION SHERRY RAY, et al., Defendants.

15 This matter come before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson (R&R (Dkt. # 15)). Having carefully reviewed the foregoing, all other relevant document, and the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 15) and DISMISSES Mr. Warren’s complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

20 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. 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). When no objections are filed, the court need not review de novo the report and recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

6 Here, no party has objected to Magistrate Judge Peterson’s Report and Recommendation. (See Dkt.) Thus, the court need not review de novo the Report and Recommendation. See Wang, 416 F.3d at 1000. Moreover, the court has examined the record before it, including the Report and Recommendation, and finds that Magistrate Judge Peterson’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 15) in its entirety. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Magistrate Judge Peterson.

13 Dated this 16th day of June, 2021.

A 16 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge