Osborne et al v. Vancouver Police et al

Filing 94

ORDER VACATING PREVIOUS ORDER, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. **3 PAGES, PRINT ALL** (Lucas Osborne, Prisoner ID: 354466) (MGC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

1
2
3

LUCAS OSBORNE,

4
5
6

CASE NO. C15-5877 BHS
Plaintiff,

v.
VANCOUVER POLICE, et al.,
Defendants.

7

ORDER VACATING PREVIOUS
ORDER, ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND DENYING MOTION TO
EXTEND DEADLINE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 86), and
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. 90).
On October 24, 2016, Defendants Charlie Ahn, the City of Vancouver, Andy
Hamlin, and the Vancouver Police moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 51. On October
26, 2016, Defendant Josh Gonzalez moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 57. On
December 20, 2016, Defendants Clark County Sheriff’s Department, Alan Earhart, and
James Eastman moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 68. On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff
responded to the motions for summary judgment. Dkt. 80. On January 30, 2017,
Defendants Charlie Ahn, Andy Hamlin, the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver Police,
Clark County Sheriff’s Department, Alan Earhart, and James Eastman replied. Dkts. 81,
82. On January 31, 2017, Defendant Josh Gonzalez replied. Dkt. 83.
On February 17, 2017, Judge Strombom entered R&Rs on the motions for
summary judgment by Defendants Charlie Ahn, the City of Vancouver, Andy Hamlin,

ORDER - 1

1

the Vancouver Police, and Josh Gonzalez. Dkts. 84, 85. On March 13, 2017, Judge

2

Strombom issued an R&R on the motion for summary judgment by Defendants Clark

3

County Sheriff’s Department, Alan Earhart, and James Eastman. Dkt. 86. In each case,

4

Judge Strombom granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkts. 84–86.

5

On March 16, 2017, the Court adopted the R&Rs issued on February 17, 2017.

6

Dkts. 88, 89. On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pleading labelled as a “Second Motion

7

for Summary Judgment with Disputed Facts and Objections to all Defendants’ Summary

8

Judgment.” Dkt. 90. The document was noted on the Court’s calendar as a motion for

9

summary judgment because it was labelled as such. See id. On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff

10

moved to extend his deadline for filing an appeal. Dkt. 91. On April 4, 2017, the Court

11

adopted the R&R that had been issued by Judge Strombom on March 13, 2017. Dkt. 92.

12

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

13

disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or

14

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

15

magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

16

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s filing on March 20, 2017, the Court concludes that

17

Plaintiff’s filing should have been noted as objections to Judge Strombom’s R&R issued

18

on March 13, 2017.1 See Dkt. 90 at 1–3. Accordingly, the Court vacates its previous order

19

adopting the R&R without consideration of Plaintiff’s objections.

20
21
22

1
Because the filing was untimely as to the R&Rs entered on February 17, 2017, the Court declines to revisit its
orders adopting those R&R’s.

ORDER - 2

1

Nonetheless, having considered the objections, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s

2

objections lack merit and once again adopts the R&R. Plaintiff’s sole issue with the R&R

3

is that Judge Strombom failed to address his response to Defendants’ motions for

4

summary judgment, which he labelled as “motion to summary judgment with disputed

5

facts,” and once again attached to his objections. Dkt. 90. See also Dkt. 80. However,

6

contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, this filing was properly addressed by Judge Strombom

7

in each of the R&Rs. Dkt. 84 at 2; Dkt. 85 at 2; Dkt. 86 at 2–4. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

8

objections are denied. Also, because the Court has vacated its previous final order,

9

Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline for his appeal (Dkt. 91) is now moot, as the

10
11
12

normal time to file an appeal will begin to run from the date of this order.
Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the
remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

13

(1)

The Court’s order entered on April 4, 2017, (Dkt. 92) is VACATED.

14

(2)

The R&R (Dkt. 86) is ADOPTED;

15

(3)

Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline for appeal (Dkt. 91) is DENIED

16

as moot.

17

(4)

18

Dated this 18th day of May, 2017.

19
20

This action is DISMISSED and the Clerk shall close this case.

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 3