Lee v. Andrewjeski

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA MICHAEL KALAMI LEE, CASE NO. C23-5576 BHS Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. MELISSA ANDREWJESKI, 11 Respondent.

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 24, recommending the Court deny pro se petitioner Michael Kalami Lee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, dismiss the case, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Lee pled guilty to two counts of first degree rape of a child in 2005. He did not appeal, and he remains in prison. The R&R concludes that Lee’s § 2254 petition is time-barred. Dkt. 24 (citing 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254(d)’s one year limitations period).

20 Lee objects to the R&R, Dkt. 25, but he does not address the one year time limit or explain why it does not apply. He argues that he is entitled to a certificate of appealability because he has raised serious constitutional issues.

1 “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. 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 party properly objects when the party files “specific written objections” to the report and recommendation as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2).

7 “[I]n providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, when a district court adopts a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court is required to merely “indicate[] that it reviewed the record de novo, found no merit to . . . [the] objections, and summarily adopt[] the magistrate judge’s analysis in [the] report and recommendation.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023).

15 In so doing, district courts are “not obligated to explicitly address [the] objections.” Id. at 437.

17 The R&R is ADOPTED and Lee’s § 2254 petition is DENIED. The Court will NOT issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The matter is DISMISSED.

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

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 \\ 1 Dated this 17th day of November, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge