Baker v. State of Washington Department of Corrections et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court VACATES its 2/28/2025 order (Dkt. # 11 . The court OVERRULES Mr. Baker's objections (Dkt. # 13 ). The court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Christel's report and recommendation (Dkt. # 10 ) in its entirety. The court DISMISSES Mr. Bakers amended complaint without prejudice. This dismissal constitutes a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to the parties and to Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. **5 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Jamall Baker, Prisoner ID: 338926)(TE)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

v.

12

14

ORDER

Plaintiff,

11

13

CASE NO. C24-5893JLR-DWC

JAMALL S. BAKER,

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

I.

17

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s report and

18

recommendation, in which he recommends that the court dismiss without prejudice

19

Plaintiff Jamall S. Baker’s amended complaint. (RR (Dkt. # 10); see also Am. Compl.

20

(Dkt. # 9).) Objections to the report and recommendation were due on February 20,

21

2025. (See generally RR.) Mr. Baker untimely filed objections on February 27, 2025.

22

(Objections (Dkt. # 13).) Due to a clerical error, however, Mr. Baker’s objections were
ORDER - 1

1

not entered until March 6, 2025. (See id.) On February 28, 2025, the court issued an

2

order adopting the report and recommendation. (2/28/25 Order (Dkt. # 11).)

3

The court exercises its discretion to consider Mr. Baker’s untimely objections and

4

thus vacates its February 28, 2025 order. Cf. Lambert v. Dennis, 737 Fed. App’x 3544,

5

355 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that a district court has discretion to strike untimely

6

objections to a report and recommendation). Having reviewed the report and

7

recommendation, Mr. Baker’s objections and other submissions, the relevant portions of

8

the record, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Christel’s report

9

and recommendation and DISMISSES Mr. Baker’s amended complaint without

10

prejudice.
II.

11

ANALYSIS

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). An objecting party must file

16

“specific written objections” to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the

18

magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may

19

accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

20

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also

21

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (same). In so doing, the district court need not “explicitly address” a

22

party’s objections unless the objections raise issues that were not discussed in the

ORDER - 2

1

magistrate’s recommended disposition. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 435-37

2

(9th Cir. 2023). If a district court overrules filed objections that do not involve new

3

issues, the court need only “indicate[] that it reviewed the record de novo, found no merit

4

to . . . [the] objections, and summarily adopt[] the magistrate judge’s analysis in [the]

5

report and recommendation.” Id. at 433.

6

In the report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Christel determined that Mr.

7

Baker’s allegations failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA.

8

(RR at 4-5.) Magistrate Judge Christel then recommended that the court decline to

9

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Baker’s remaining state law claim and

10

dismiss Mr. Baker’s complaint without prejudice. (Id. at 6-8.) Mr. Baker makes two

11

objections to the report and recommendation. First, he objects that he suffers from a

12

brain injury and struggles at times to articulate himself, and thus needs additional time to

13

retain counsel “at his cost” to speak on his behalf. (Objections at 1-2.) The court,

14

however, has no difficulty understanding Mr. Baker’s amended complaint and objections,

15

and Mr. Baker does not appear to struggle to articulate himself in writing. Furthermore,

16

Mr. Baker, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, has not indicated how he will be able to

17

obtain counsel or when that might occur.

18

Second, Mr. Baker objects that the report and recommendation “misinterpreted”

19

his amended complaint as to his allegations of deliberate indifference to a serious medical

20

need. (Id. at 2.) Specifically, Mr. Baker argues that his amended complaint alleged that

21

he submitted medical kites, i.e., written requests for medical attention, to Defendants, and

22

that Defendants refused to respond. (Id. at 2-3.) In support, Mr. Baker included a single

ORDER - 3

1

medical kite, dated August 20, 2024, with his objections. (Id. at Ex. 2.) Although the

2

kite is partially illegible, it includes a response to Mr. Baker’s request under “health

3

services response/encounter.” (Id.) The response indicates that a request was sent out on

4

Mr. Baker’s behalf and assures Mr. Baker that he will be informed of the decision. (Id.)

5

Accordingly, Mr. Baker’s objections do not provide a basis to reject or modify

6

Magistrate Judge Christel’s recommended disposition. To the contrary, Mr. Baker’s

7

objections support that (1) Defendants did not ignore his requests for medical treatment,

8

and (2) Mr. Baker failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical

9

need under the Eighth Amendment. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th

10

Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133

11

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
III.

12

CONCLUSION

13

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

14

1. The court VACATES its February 28, 2025 order (Dkt. # 11);

15

2. The court OVERRULES Mr. Baker’s objections (Dkt. # 13);

16

3. The court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Christel’s report and recommendation

17

(Dkt. # 10) in its entirety;
4. The court DISMISSES Mr. Baker’s amended complaint without prejudice.

18
19

This dismissal constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 4

1
2

5. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to the parties and to
Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.

3
4

Dated this 7th day of March, 2025.

A

5

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 5