Kinney v. State of Washington et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 JAMES ALLEN SUSKE KINNEY, 8 9 10 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C15-5354 BHS ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 14 of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 10), and 15 Plaintiff James Allen Suske Kinney’s (“Kinney”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 11). 16 On July 6, 2015, Judge Strombom issued the R&R recommending that the Court 17 dismiss Kinney’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to 18 correct identified deficiencies in the original complaint. Dkt. 10. On July 23, 2015, 19 Kinney filed a notice of appeal. Dkt. 11. 20 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 21 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or 22 ORDER - 1 1 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 2 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 3 In this case, Kinney filed a notice of appeal instead of objections. Because Kinney 4 failed to file substantive arguments objecting to any portion of the R&R, the Court will 5 review the R&R for clear err. Upon review of the R&R, the Court finds no err. 6 Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Kinney’s appeal, and the remaining 7 record, does hereby find and order as follows: 8 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; and 9 (2) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 Dated this 31st day of August, 2015. 11 A 12 13 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 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?