Suber v. Snohomish County Corrections Bureau Food Services et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 12 Objections to Report and Recommendation by Judge James L. Robart. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(James Suber, Prisoner ID: 849597)(SG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JAMES SUBER,

CASE NO. C18-0429JLR
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13
14

SNOHOMISH COUNTY
CORRECTIONS BUREAU FOOD
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

18

Judge Mary Alice Theiler (R&R (Dkt. # 11)) and Plaintiff James Suber’s objections

19

thereto (Objections (Dkt. # 12)). Having reviewed those documents, the relevant portions

20

of the record, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the Report and

21

Recommendation (Dkt. # 11) and DISMISSES Mr. Suber’s complaint without prejudice

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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 a

8

party makes a specific written objection. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

9

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must

10

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is

11

made, but not otherwise.” Id.

12

III.

DISCUSSION

The court has reviewed Mr. Suber’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights

13
14

complaint (Compl. (Dkt. # 6)); his amended complaint (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 10)); the

15

Report and Recommendation (R&R); and Mr. Suber’s objections to the Report and

16

Recommendation (Objection). Mr. Suber’s objections do not raise any novel issue that

17

was not addressed by Magistrate Judge Theiler’s Report and Recommendation.

18

Moreover, the court has thoroughly examined the full record and finds Magistrate Judge

19

Theiler’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. Accordingly, the court

20

independently rejects the arguments that Mr. Suber makes in his objections for the same

21

reasons that Magistrate Judge Theiler did.

22

//

ORDER - 2

1
2

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

3

(Dkt. # 11) in its entirety. Mr. Suber’s Section 1983 prisoner civil rights complaint is

4

DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court further

5

DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order to the parties and to Magistrate Judge

6

Theiler.

7

Dated this 27th day of July, 2018.

8
9

A

10

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3