William Samuel Schmidt v. Dean Mason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 WILLIAM SAMUEL SCHMIDT, CASE NO. C25-5021JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. DEAN MASON, Respondent.

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court are United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s report and recommendation recommending denial of Petitioner William Samuel Schmidt’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (R&R (Dkt. # 21); Petition (Dkt. # 5)), and Mr. Schmidt’s objections thereto (Objections (Dkt. # 22)). The court has considered Magistrate Judge Fricke’s report and recommendation, Mr. Schmidt’s objections, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law. Being fully advised, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation, DISMISSES Mr. Schmidt’s habeas petition, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.

3 II. BACKGROUND 4 Because Mr. Schmidt has not objected to the report and recommendation’s discussion of the factual and procedural background of this matter, the court adopts that discussion in its entirety. (R&R at 1-3; see generally Objections.)

7 Mr. Schmidt filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 9, 2025.

8 (See IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 1).) He challenges his January 26, 2018 conviction and sentence on four counts of child molestation in the first degree. (See generally Petition; see R&R at 1-2 (citing the state court record).) Magistrate Judge Fricke recommends that the court (1) find that Mr. Schmidt’s habeas petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); (2) deny Mr. Schmidt’s request for an evidentiary hearing; and (3) deny a certificate of appealability. (See generally R&R.) 15 Mr. Schmidt’s objections to the report and recommendation state, in their entirety: 16 The petitioner “OBJECTS” to the State’s Report and Recommendations: a. Certificate of Appealability should be denied and; 18 b. The petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition should be denied; for the same aforementioned reasons stated about in addition the [] fact 19 the state is not entitled to AEDPA deference because the state failed to provide a “full and fair” review in the state court thus triggering a 20 mandatory federal evidentiary hearing in the district court. See: Rule 8.

21 (Objections.) Respondents did not respond to Mr. Schmidt’s objections. (See generally Dkt.)

1 III. ANALYSIS 2 A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Because Mr. Schmidt is proceeding pro se, the court must interpret his petition and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

10 The court has carefully considered Mr. Schmidt’s objections and has reviewed Magistrate Judge Fricke’s report and recommendation de novo in light of those objections. Having done so, the court agrees with Magistrate Judge Fricke’s recommendations for the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation.

14 Accordingly, the court overrules Mr. Schmidt’s objections and adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety.

16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, the court OVERRULES Mr. Schmidt’s objections (Dkt.

18 # 22) and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Fricke’s report and recommendation (Dkt. # 21) in its entirety. Mr. Schmidt’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED for the reasons set forth in // // Magistrate Judge Fricke’s report and recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

3 Dated this 30th day of December, 2025.

A 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge