Rogers v. Howard et al

Filing 137

ORDER adopting 134 Report and Recommendation, granting Summary Judgment to Defendants, and Dismissing Case with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (Daryl Rogers, Prisoner ID: 412163) (SB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 DARYL ROGERS, 10 v. 11 HOWARD, et al. 12 Case No.: 21-cv-5311-BJR-TLF Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS, AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE Defendants. 13 14 Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable 15 Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke recommending that the State Defendants’ motion for 16 summary judgment be granted and this case dismissed with prejudice. The Report and 17 Recommendation was issued on May 29, 2024 and Plaintiff’s objections, if any, were due on or 18 before June 12, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff did not file his objections until June 19 26, 2024, well past the designated deadline. Dkt. No. 135. 20 Plaintiff is well-versed in the procedures governing prisoner pro se cases such as this, 21 having filed at least three separate lawsuits in as many years. See e.g. Rogers v. Clark County 22 Corrections, 2023 WL 4847002, *1 (W.D. Wash. July 28, 2023); Rogers v. Washington 23 Department of Corrections, Case No.: 21-cv-5011-BJR-TLF. Plaintiff is equally familiar with 1 1 the process of requesting extensions of time from the Court, having done so on multiple 2 occasions in his lawsuits. Here, however, Plaintiff neither requested an extension nor provided an 3 explanation for his tardiness. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff waived his right to a 4 de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 5 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003) (a parties’ right to de novo 6 review by the district court may be deemed waived if objections are not timely filed); Ghazali v. 7 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (although courts construe the pleadings of pro se litigants 8 liberally in their favor, they are still required to follow the rules of procedure). 9 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, 10 GRANTS the State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case 11 with prejudice. 12 Dated this 5th day of July 2024. 13 A 14 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?