Crick v. Key

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 26 Report and Recommendation. Mr. Crick's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition is DISMISSED; Mr. Crick is DENIED issuance of a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

PATRICK S. CRICK,

10

CASE NO. C17-1348JLR
ORDER

Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
JAMES KEY,

13

Defendant.

14
15

I.

16

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of Chief

17

United States Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida (R&R (Dkt. # 26)), and Petitioner

18

Patrick Crick’s objections thereto (Objections (Dkt. # 32)). Having carefully considered

19

the foregoing, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court

20

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 26).

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 1

1

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

2

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

3

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must

4

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

5

objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

6

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

7

The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which

8

specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

9

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review

10

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

11

not otherwise.” Id. When no objections are filed, the court need not review de novo the

12

report and recommendation. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

13
14

III.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Crick’s main objection to the Report and Recommendation attacks the Chief

15

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the court reject Plaintiff’s equitable tolling

16

argument. (Objections at 3-7.) None of Mr. Crick’s objections raise any novel issues

17

that were not addressed by Chief Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s Report and

18

Recommendation. Moreover, the court has thoroughly examined the record before it and

19

finds the Chief Magistrate Judge’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. Mr. Crick

20

essentially reargues the arguments he made to Chief Magistrate Judge Tsuchida, and the

21

court independently rejects them for the same reasons as Chief Magistrate Judge

22

Tsuchida.

ORDER - 2

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:

3

(1) The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED;

4

(2) Mr. Crick’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition is DISMISSED;

5

(3) Mr. Crick is DENIED issuance of a certificate of appealability; and

6

(4) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties and to Chief Magistrate

7
8

Judge Tsuchida.
Dated this 19th day of October, 2018.

9
10

A

11

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3