Tran v. Clark County Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA TAM TRAN, CASE NO 3:22-cv-05827-BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. CLARK COUNTY COURT, 11 Defendant.

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Fricke’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Dkt. 4, recommending that the court deny pro se Plaintiff Tam Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and dismiss the matter without prejudice. Tran has not objected to the R&R. 17 Judge Fricke concluded that Tran’s claims are facially time-barred, as the DUI arrest of which he complains occurred more than 10 years ago, he has not named a “person” as a § 1983 or Bivens defendant, and he has otherwise failed to state a plausible claim.

21 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed disposition to which a party has properly objected. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Objections to an R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the magistrate judge. See, e.g., Fix v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., CV 16-41-M-DLC-JCL, 2017 WL 2721168, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 2017) (collecting cases).

9 The Court agrees that Tran has failed to state a plausible claim. The R&R is ADOPTED and the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.

11 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated this 10th day of January, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge