Smith v. Gronseth et al
Filing
82
ORDER ADOPTING 80 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 81 Objections by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. In forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of appeal. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Jess Smith, Prisoner ID: 739951)(GMR)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
3
4
JESS R. SMITH,
5
6
7
CASE NO. C16-5775 BHS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
BARBARA GRONSETH, et al.,
Defendants.
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 David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 80, and
Plaintiff Jess Smith’s (“Smith”) objections to the R&R, Dkt. 81.
On August 16, 2018, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court
grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and close the case. Dkt. 80. On August
20, 2018, Smith objected. Dkt. 81.
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In this case, Smith objects to almost every portion of the R&R. Smith, however,
fails to present any persuasive argument in support of his position. Smith claims that
Defendants violated his right of access to the courts by failing to provide access to out-of-
ORDER - 1
1
state case law. Judge Christel concluded that Smith failed to establish any actual injury
2
based on the denial of Smith’s petition to the Supreme Court or denial of his personal
3
restraint petition in state court. Dkt. 80 at 5–10. Although Smith objects to these
4
conclusion, he fails to establish how any case from another state involving that state’s
5
laws would assist him in drafting a petition based on federal law or a petition for relief
6
under Washington’s laws. Thus, he has failed to show that Judge Christel committed any
7
error.
8
Second, Smith objects to Judge Christel’s recommendation that the Court should
9
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s remaining state law claims.
10
Smith, however, fails to provide any persuasive reason to retain these claims after the
11
Court dismisses his only federal claim. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R,
12
Smith’s objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:
13
(1)
The R&R is ADOPTED;
14
(2)
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, Smith’s First
15
Amendment claim is DISMISSED with prejudice, and Smith’s remaining
16
state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice;
17
(3)
Smith’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of appeal; and
18
(4)
The Clerk shall enter JUDGMENT and close this case.
19
Dated this 25th day of October, 2018.
A
20
21
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
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?