Zamora v. Warner

Filing 28

ORDER re plaintiff's 27 Objections; Insofar as plaintiff intended the letter to be a Rule 60 motion for relief from the Court's previously entered order, that motion is DENIED, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Isaac Zamora, Prisoner ID: 827534)(SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ISAAC LEE ZAMORA,

Case No. C17-1007RSL

10
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

JACK WARNER,
Defendant.

14
15

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s objections, Dkt. # 27, to the Report and

16 Recommendation (R&R) by the Honorable James P. Donohue, Dkt. # 22. The R&R
17 recommended denying two of plaintiff’s motions and stated that objections should be filed no
18 later than November 22, 2017. Dkt. # 22 at 22. On December 13, 2017, the Court approved and
19 adopted the R&R and denied plaintiff’s motions. Dkt. # 25. On December 21, 2017, plaintiff
20 filed a letter stating: “You should have been the better. I do not agree with the Report biased
21 Recommendation. I want stop of the actions. I agree with our President Donald Trump you and
22 aleged court of civil rights is significant cost burden. I wanted equal chance[.]” Dkt. # 27.
23 (mistakes in original). Construing the points in plaintiff’s letter as objections to the R&R, those
24 objections are untimely because the letter was filed after November 22, 2017. In addition, the
25 letter would not have changed the Court’s decision to approve and adopt the R&R and to deny
26 plaintiff’s motions. Insofar as plaintiff intended the letter to be a Rule 60 motion for relief from
27 the Court’s previously entered order, that motion is DENIED.
28
ORDER - 1

1

DATED this 8th day of February, 2018.

2
3
4

A
Robert S. Lasnik

5

United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 2