Demos v. Inslee

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., CASE NO. C22-5793-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. JAY INSLEE, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 3) to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 2). Judge Christel’s R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s proposed complaint be dismissed without prejudice for non-compliance with the 1992 Bar Order. (See Dkt. No. 2.) The R&R summarizes the proposed complaint’s allegations, the Bar Order’s conditions, and Plaintiff’s suits within this District. (See Dkt. No. 2 at 1–3.) The Court need not repeat that information here.

22 Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R takes issue with the Bar Order and its conditions—not the R&R’s interpretation of the Order. (See Dkt. No. 3.) This collateral attack of the Bar Order is not responsive to the analysis or conclusions contained within the R&R and, therefore, does not trigger this Court’s review of the R&R.1 2 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R (Dkt. No. 3) is OVERRULED; 4 2. The R&R (Dkt. No. 2) is ADOPTED and APPROVED; 5 3. The proposed complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 6 4. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED; and 7 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge Christel.

9 DATED this 18th day of November 2022.

A John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 A district court only reviews those portions of an R&R to which a party properly objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”

24 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). The court is not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. Said another way, for an objection to be proper, it must point to specific error contained within the R&R. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Lemus, 2010 WL 2573748, slip op. at 1 (D. Ariz. 2010); see Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 26 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020).