Nguyen v. Corporation of Catholic Archbishop

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA HUONG THI NGUYEN, CASE NO. C24-5996 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. CORPORATION OF CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP, et al., Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 10, recommending the Court deny pro se plaintiff Huong Nguyen’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and dismiss without prejudice her proposed complaint, Dkt. 1-1, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a plausible claim. Nguyen’s claims relate to a 2013 on the job injury and ensuing workers compensation claim. She seeks to sue her employers’ attorneys, other attorneys, and various judges that have apparently already ruled against her in prior litigation arising from the same incident.

1 Nguyen has objected to the R&R, Dkt. 11, but she does not address the basis for the R&R’s proposed dismissal of her claim. She instead reiterates that she was injured and is entitled to compensation, and repeats her claim that various attorneys and judges mishandled her claim.

5 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

8 The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “[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 15 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[s] the magistrate judge’s analysis in [the] report and recommendation.”

19 United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). In so doing, district courts are “not obligated to explicitly address [the] objections.” Id. at 437.

1 The R&R correctly points out that the judicial defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity, that Nguyen has failed to identify a federal question over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and has not stated a plausible claim against any defendant. The objections are OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED, Nguyen’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall close the case.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated this 8th day of April, 2025.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge