D'allo v. Washington State Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA TIMJAE A. D’ALLO, CASE NO. C23-5640 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold’s report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 8, recommending the Court deny pro se plaintiff Timjae D’Allo’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this case without prejudice, for failure to state a plausible claim.

The Court ordered D’Allo to amend his complaint, and he did so. Dkts. 5, 6. The R&R correctly concludes that D’Allo’s amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim.

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 D’Allo has not objected to the R&R’s recommended dismissal of his claim.

8 The R&R is ADOPTED. D’Allo’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.

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

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated this 15th day of February, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge