Rotchford v. State of Washington

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Judge James L. Robart. The Court DISMISSES Mr. Rotchfords 1 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition with prejudice. The Court DENIES issuance of a certificate of appealability for the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation (see R&R at 7).**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Fraser Rotchford, Prisoner ID: 338069)(MIH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11

FRASER MCDONOUGH
ROTCHFORD,

12
13

v.

18
19
20
21
22

Petitioner,

Respondent.

15

17

ORDER

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

14

16

CASE NO. C24-5805JLR

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s report and
recommendation, in which he recommends that the court dismiss pro se Petitioner Fraser
McDonough Rotchford’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus with
prejudice. (R&R (Dkt. # 4); see also Prop. Petition (Dkt. # 1).) Mr. Rotchford did not
file objections to the report and recommendation before the November 12, 2024 deadline.
(See R&R at 8 (setting deadline); see generally Dkt.) Having reviewed the report and

ORDER - 1

1

recommendation, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law, the court

2

ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s report and recommendation, DISMISSES Mr.

3

Rotchford’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.
II.

4

ANALYSIS

5

A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and

6

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court

7

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

8

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the

9

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo

10

if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

11

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

12

Magistrate Judge Tsuchida recommends that the court dismiss Mr. Rotchford’s

13

petition because (1) Mr. Rotchford previously filed a habeas petition challenging his

14

King County conviction, which the court dismissed as untimely and as presenting

15

unexhausted claims; (2) Mr. Rotchford’s claims are unexhausted; (3) the petition fails to

16

set forth any facts showing relief is warranted under § 2254; and (4) Mr. Rotchford has

17

neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.

18

(See R&R at 1-2.) Mr. Rotchford has not objected to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s

19

recommendation. (See generally Dkt.) The court has thoroughly examined the record

20

before it and finds Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s reasoning persuasive in light of that

21

record. The court has also independently reviewed Mr. Rotchford’s petition and agrees

22

with the reasoning and conclusions set forth in the report and recommendation.

ORDER - 2

1

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation, DISMISSES Mr.

2

Rotchford’s habeas corpus petition, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.

3

III.

4

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

5

1. The court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 4) in its entirety;

6

2. The court DISMISSES Mr. Rotchford’s habeas corpus petition (Dkt. # 1) with

7
8
9
10
11
12

CONCLUSION

prejudice;
3. The court DENIES issuance of a certificate of appealability for the reasons set
forth in the report and recommendation (see R&R at 7); and
4. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Mr. Rotchford
and Magistrate Judge Tsuchida.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2024.

13

A

14

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 3