Roberson v. Bennett

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by U.S. District Judge John C. The Court OVERRULES Petitioners 6 Objections and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Neil Roberson, Prisoner ID: 854232)(MIH)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 NEIL JAMES ROBERSON, 10 11 12 v. Petitioner, CASE NO. C24-0241-JCC ORDER JASON BENNETT, 13 Respondent. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s objections (Dkt. No. 6) to the Report 16 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate 17 Judge (Dkt. No. 5). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court 18 OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES this matter without 19 prejudice for the reasons explained herein. 20 In an order to show cause, Judge Fricke ordered Petitioner to explain why his § 2254 21 habeas petition should not be dismissed prior to service for failure to demonstrate the exhaustion 22 of state remedies. (See Dkt. No. 4 at 2–3.) Petitioner did not respond to that order, and Judge 23 Fricke then recommended to this Court that it dismiss this matter without prejudice. (See Dkt. 24 No. 5 at 1–2.) Petitioner responded to the R&R with a litany of objections. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1– 25 26 ORDER C24-0241-JCC PAGE - 1 1 3.) 1 But none of the objections address the key issue Judge Fricke raised—Petitioner’s failure to 2 demonstrate exhaustion of his state remedies. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 1–3.) They are, therefore, 3 ineffective. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing 4 the requirements for an effective objection). 5 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (Dkt. No. 6), ADOPTS Judge Fricke’s R&R (Dkt. No. 5), and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. 7 8 DATED this 10th day of May 2024. A 9 10 11 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Court reviews de novo those portions of a R&R to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). ORDER C24-0241-JCC PAGE - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?