Williams v. Larson

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA CHARLES JAMES WILLIAMS, 9 CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00599-RSL-GJL Plaintiff, v. 10 AMENDED ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LUKE LARSON, et al., Defendants.

On July 15, 2025, this Court entered an order (Dkt. # 6) adopting the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold (Dkt. # 5). At that time, the Court was unaware that plaintiff had mailed objections to Magistrate Judge Leupold’s R&R that were received at this courthouse one day earlier, on July 14, 2025.

Dkt. # 7. Plaintiff’s objections were subsequently entered into the docket for this case on July 16, 2025, one day after entry of this Court’s order adopting Magistrate Judge Leupold’s R&R, at which point this Court became aware of plaintiff’s objections. See Dkts. # 6, 7. Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R were timely filed. See Dkt. # 5 at 2:8–15.

22 See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), 6(d), 6(a)(1)(C), 5(b)(2)(C). Therefore, the Court will consider plaintiff’s objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and documents filed pro se are to be liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.

3 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, pleadings “must be construed so as to do justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). This Court therefore construes plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. # 7) as a request for more time to file an amended complaint. See Dkt. # 7. See also Dkt. # 4 (Magistrate Judge Leupold ordering plaintiff to submit an amended complaint to cure deficiencies by May 27, 2025 or Judge Leupold would recommend dismissal of the case). Given the reasons plaintiff has provided for his failure to amend his complaint by Magistrate Judge Leupold’s deadline of May 27, 2025 (Dkt. # 7), the Court in its discretion GRANTS plaintiff until August 18, 2025 to file an amended complaint, DECLINES to adopt Magistrate Judge Leupold’s R&R (Dkt. # 5), and STRIKES the Court’s previous order (Dkt. # 6).

14 This matter is re-referred to Magistrate Judge Leupold for consideration of plaintiff’s amended complaint if one is filed by August 18, 2025, and in any event for submission of a new Report and Recommendation to this Court at a time after August 18, 2025.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2025.

Robert S. Lasnik 24 United States District Judge