Joseph A. Hall v. Kevin Bovenkamp

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT TACOMA JOSEPH A. HALL, CASE NO. C25-5939-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. KEVIN BOVENKAMP, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 7). Judge Tsuchida recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) for failing to state a claim. (See generally Dkt. No. 7.) Judge Tsuchida further recommends denying leave to amend based on futility. (Id.) In response, Plaintiff move for leave to amend and the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) But neither request addresses the deficiencies Judge Tsuchida identifies. And Plaintiff does not otherwise timely object to Judge Tsuchida’s recommendation.

23 Thus, Plaintiff’s filings do not trigger this Court’s de novo review of the R&R itself.1 A district court only reviews those portions of an R&R to which a party properly objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). The court is not required to review “any issue that is Regardless, the Court FINDS the R&R to be well-reasoned and would not otherwise depart from it. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 7), DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 6) with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and DIRECTS the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a copy of this order.

6 DATED this 24th day of November 2025.

A John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. Said another way, for an objection to be proper, it must point to specific error contained within the R&R. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Lemus, 2010 WL 2573748, slip op. at 1 (D. Ariz. 2010); Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 F.

26 Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020).