Littlefield v. Hubbs

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE JOSEPH TYLER LITTLEFIELD, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-790-JHC 10 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION CHERYL STRANGE, et al., 12 Defendants.

14 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 61) of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 62), and the remaining record, hereby ORDERS: 17 (1) The Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted. The Court has reviewed the record de novo and finds no merit to Plaintiff’s objections. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023).

20 (2) Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Dkt. 58) and this action are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23 (3) Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint (Dkt. 55) is DENIED as moot.

1 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge |} Vaughan.

3 DATED this 26th day of December, 2024.

5 fpeks _ JOHN H. CHUN 6 United States District Judge 1] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION PAGE - 2