Bell v. Olson

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE WARREN E. BELL, CASE NO. C21-0781-JCC-SKV Plaintiff, ORDER v. DAVID OLSON, et al., Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Warren Bell’s objection (Dkt. No. 58) to the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 56), and his objection to Judge Vaughan’s order denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 54). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 56), OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 54, 58), and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief (Dkt. No. 50) for the reasons explained below.

22 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in Snohomish County Superior Court (Dkt. No. 1-2) against Trooper David Olson and Nurse Autumn Kostelecky, and against the Snohomish County Jail and Snohomish County Risk Management, which Defendants removed to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff later moved to amend his complaint, seeking to omit the original County Defendants and to add Snohomish County and Snohomish County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Hayley Bigoni as Defendants. (Dkt. No. 41.) Judge Vaughan denied that motion, finding the proposed amendment futile. (Dkt. No. 46 at 12.) Plaintiff then moved for relief from the judgment (Dkt. No. 50) and filed an objection (Dkt. No. 54) to the order denying his motion to amend. Judge Vaughan recommended Plaintiff’s motion for relief be denied because her denial did not present a final judgment, order, or proceeding as is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Dkt. No. 56 at 3.) Plaintiff objected to that R&R. (Dkt. No. 58.)

8 De novo review of a magistrate judge’s R&R is not required when a party fails to direct the Court to a specific error. United States v. Diaz-Lemus, 2010 WL 2573748, slip op. at 1 (D. 10 Ariz. 2010); see also Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. 11 Wash. 2020) (district courts only review de novo “those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific written objection is made”). While pro se litigants are held to a more lenient standard, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), that does not excuse them from making proper objections, see, e.g., Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, he is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.”).

17 Here, Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R (Dkt. No. 58) is unresponsive. He does not argue that Judge Vaughan’s earlier order was a final judgment, order, or proceeding. (See generally id.) Instead, he focuses on evidence he wishes to use in his case against David Olson. (Id.) Because this was not the issued addressed in the R&R, Plaintiff has not lodged a proper objection to the R&R. Therefore, the court considers it unopposed.

22 Nor is Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Vaughan’s earlier denial (Dkt. No. 54) responsive to that order. Instead, he points to the loss of evidence that he believed would cure the defect Judge Vaughan identified in her order. (Id.) But as Judge Vaughan stated in her R&R, “the order did not preclude Plaintiff from again seeking to amend with a sufficient claim.” (Dkt. No. 56 at 3.)

26 That would be entirely different from objecting to a well-reasoned R&R with irrelevant arguments.

2 For the foregoing reasons: 3 (1) The Court APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 56).

4 (2) Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 58) to the R&R is OVERRULED.

5 (3) Plaintiff’s motion for relief (Dkt. No. 50) from the order denying his motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 46) is DENIED.

7 (4) Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 54) to the order denying his motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 46) is OVERRULED.

9 (5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge Vaughan.

12 DATED this 25th day of April 2022.

A John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE