Justin Domonic Bell v. Karen Arnold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JUSTIN DOMONIC BELL, CASE NO. C25-1320 BHS Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. KAREN ARNOLD, 11 Respondent.

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 18, recommending the Court deny with prejudice pro se petitioner Justin Bell’s § 2254 habeas petition, and to not issue a certificate of appealability. The R&R concludes that Bell’s Grounds 1 and 2 are procedurally defaulted because he failed to exhaust his state court remedies, and that the state courts’ adjudication of his Grounds 3 and 4 was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, state law.

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

1 The Court 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). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

6 Bell has not objected to the R&R, and it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is instead correct, and it is ADOPTED. Bell’s § 2254 habeas petition, Dkt. 9, is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. For the reasons articulated in the R&R, the Court will not issue a § 2253(c) certificate of appealability.

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

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated this 5th day of January, 2026.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United S tates District Judge