Brown v. Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA DRANOEL ENAJ BROWN, CASE NO. C24-0124 BHS Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTEMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 9, recommending the Court deny pro se petitioner Dranoel Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to state a plausible claim for relief, deny Brown a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and dismiss the case with prejudice. Brown has not objected to the R&R. 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, Brown’s § 2254 petition is DENIED, and the case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court will NOT issue Brown a Certificate of Appealability for the reasons described in the R&R. 8 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2024.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge