Donnette-Sherman v. State of Washington
Filing
43
ORDER ADOPTING 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8
JOSEPH MICHAEL DONNETTESHERMAN,
9
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. C17-5600 BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
v.
10
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 David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 34, and
15
Plaintiff Joseph Michael Donnette-Sherman’s (“Plaintiff”) objections to the R&R, Dkt.
16
38.
17
On November 6, 2018, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the
18
Court grant Defendant State of Washington’s (“State”) motion to dismiss because it is not
19
subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 34. On November 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed
20
objections. Dkt. 38.
21
22
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
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, Plaintiff’s objection is based on his concern that the State has a duty
4
to provide documentation of state court criminal matters. Dkt. 38. Plaintiff fails to
5
establish that the State must be maintained as a party to the matter even if it has a duty to
6
provide some discovery relevant to his claims. Therefore, the Court having considered
7
the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as
8
follows:
9
(1)
The R&R is ADOPTED;
10
(2)
The State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and
11
(3)
The Clerk shall terminate the State as a party.
12
Dated this 24th day of January, 2019.
A
13
14
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
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?