Perez v. Grey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 DANIEL PEREZ, CASE NO. C21-0095JLR-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMENDATION KATHRYN GREY, et al., Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. (R&R (Dkt. # 52).) Having carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 52) and DENIES Plaintiff Daniel Jay Perez’s second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkt. # 46).

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. Thus, the court reviews de novo only 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).

7 Here, no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation. (See Dkt.) Thus, the court need not review de novo the Report and Recommendation. See Wang, 416 F.3d 9 at 1000. Moreover, the court has examined the record, including the Report and Recommendation, and finds the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

12 Mr. Perez’s second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this order to the parties and to Magistrate Judge Christel.

15 Dated this 3rd day of September, 2021.

A 18 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge