Blakely v. State of Washington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 RALPH HOWARD BLAKELY, CASE NO. C21-5192JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michelle J. Peterson (R&R (Dkt. # 14)), and pro se Plaintiff Ralph Howard Blakely’s objections thereto (Objections (Dkt. # 15)). Magistrate Judge Peterson recommends that the court dismiss Mr. Blakely’s complaint pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (See generally R&R.) Having carefully reviewed all of the foregoing, all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES Mr. Blakely’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants Tomas Fithian and Beth Lindenman with prejudice, and his claims against Brad Bowman and Fernando Carranza without prejudice.

4 II. ANALYSIS 5 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).

10 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 not otherwise.” Id. Because Mr. Blakely is proceeding pro se, this court must interpret his complaint and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 16 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

17 The court has reviewed Mr. Blakely’s objections, and has considered Magistrate Judge Peterson’s recommendations de novo in light of those objections. Mr. Blakely’s objections do not raise any novel issues that were not addressed by Magistrate Judge Peterson’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the court has thoroughly examined the record before it and finds Magistrate Judge Peterson’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. The court independently finds that Mr. Blakely’s amended complaint (Am.

1 Compl. (Dkt. # 13)) fails to state a claim for the same reasons set forth by Magistrate Judge Peterson in her Report and Recommendation.

3 III. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: 5 (1) The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 14) in its entirety.

7 (2) Mr. Blakely’s amended complaint (Dkt. # 13) and this action are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This dismissal is with prejudice as to Defendants Tomas Fithian and Beth Lindenman, and without prejudice as to Defendants Brad Bowman and Fernando Carranza.

12 (3) The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this Order to Mr. Blakely and to Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson.

14 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2021.

A 17 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge