Johnston v. United States Department of Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JACOB ANDREW JOHNSTON, CASE NO. C25-1382 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Brian Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 7, recommending the Court dismiss pro se plaintiff Jacob Johnston’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim.

Johnston’s complaint asserts that gangs are bad for America and asks the Court order that gang membership is illegal and imposing a tax on gang-related music and movies.

The R&R correctly concludes that the Court cannot do so for a variety of reasons, and that Johnston could not amend his complaint to make it plausible. It recommends dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend.

1 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). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

7 A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In 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 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the district court is required only to indicate that it reviewed the record de novo and found no merit to the objections in order to summarily adopt the R&R’s analysis. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023). The district court is not obligated to “expressly address” every objection. Id. at 437.

16 Johnston has objected to the R&R, but his objections do not address the R&R’s reasoning, or the law cited in it. Instead, Johnston simply asserts that continuation of the case would be “beneficial for the United States,” and that his taxation proposal is “reasonable and not over the top.” Dkt. 8.

20 This claim is not plausible and there is nothing Johnson could add to make it so. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.

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

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated this 16th day of September, 2025.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge