Howell v. Shadywoods

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA MICHELLE HOWELL, CASE NO. C23-5143 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. SHADYWOODS, 11 Defendant.

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 10, recommending the Court dismiss plaintiff Michelle Howell’s complaint without prejudice and without leave to further amend.

16 Judge Fricke previously granted Howell in forma pauperis status, but ordered her to file an amended complaint correcting various deficiencies in her initial complaint. Dkt. 7.

18 Howell filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 9. Judge Fricke’s R&R correctly determined that the amended complaint did not cure the deficientness and still failed to state a plausible claim. Dkt. 10.

21 A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 1 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “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.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

7 Plaintiff Howell has not objected to the R&R. Accordingly, she is not entitled to have the Court review any portion of the R&R de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Therefore, 10 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 11 (2) Plaintiff Howell’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; 12 (3) Howell’s in forma pauperis status shall NOT continue in the event of an 13 appeal; and 14 (4) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated this 18th day of September, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge