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)

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