Pond v. Washington State Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ZACHARY IRWIN POND, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05599-BHS Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 7, recommending that the Court deny pro se petitioner Zachary Pond’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice for failure to keep the Court apprised of his address and failure to respond to a court order. Pond has not objected or otherwise responded.

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 20 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).

5 The R&R is ADOPTED. Pond’s § 2254 habeas petition is DENIED, and this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. The Court will not permit Pond to proceed in forma pauperis in the event of an appeal.

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

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated this 4th day of January, 2024.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge