Demos v. Inslee et al

Filing 4

ORDER ADOPTING #2 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(John Demos, Prisoner ID: 287455) (JWC)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR.,

10
11
12

v.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C22-5793-JCC
ORDER

JAY INSLEE, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 3) to the Report and

16

Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge

17

(Dkt. No. 2). Judge Christel’s R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s proposed complaint be

18

dismissed without prejudice for non-compliance with the 1992 Bar Order. (See Dkt. No. 2.) The

19

R&R summarizes the proposed complaint’s allegations, the Bar Order’s conditions, and

20

Plaintiff’s suits within this District. (See Dkt. No. 2 at 1–3.) The Court need not repeat that

21

information here.

22

Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R takes issue with the Bar Order and its conditions—not

23

the R&R’s interpretation of the Order. (See Dkt. No. 3.) This collateral attack of the Bar Order is

24

not responsive to the analysis or conclusions contained within the R&R and, therefore, does not

25
26
ORDER
C22-5793-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

trigger this Court’s review of the R&R. 1

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

3

1.

Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R (Dkt. No. 3) is OVERRULED;

4

2.

The R&R (Dkt. No. 2) is ADOPTED and APPROVED;

5

3.

The proposed complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice;

6

4.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED; and

7

5.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge

8

Christel.

9

DATED this 18th day of November 2022.

A

10
11
12

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

A district court only reviews those portions of an R&R to which a party properly objects. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to
“focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). The court is not required to review “any issue that is
not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. Said another way, for an objection to be proper, it
must point to specific error contained within the R&R. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Lemus,
2010 WL 2573748, slip op. at 1 (D. Ariz. 2010); see Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434
F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020).
ORDER
C22-5793-JCC
PAGE - 2