Message
×
loading..

Johnson v. Miller ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 BRENDA M. JOHNSON, CASE NO. C21-5539 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 v. AND RECOMMENDATION 10 AMBER MILLER, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 14 of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 23, and 15 Plaintiff Brenda Johnson’s objections to the R&R, Dkt. 24. 16 Johnson initiated this matter in July 2021 and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis 17 (“IFP”). Upon a review of Johnson’s proposed complaint, Judge Creatura ordered 18 Johnson to show cause or amend the complaint due to illegibility and for failing to state a 19 claim upon which relief could be granted. Dkt. 12. Johnson filed a proposed amended 20 complaint, naming seven defendants and asserting that the Court has federal question 21 jurisdiction over her claims, which appear to be predicated upon a landlord-tenant 22 dispute. Dkt. 14. 1 On September 22, 2021, Judge Creatura issued the instant R&R, recommending 2 that the Court deny Johnson’s motion to proceed IFP and dismiss the matter without 3 prejudice. Dkt. 23. The R&R concluded that Johnson’s proposed amended complaint 4 again failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that, because Johnson 5 had a previous opportunity to amend, providing another opportunity to amend would be 6 futile. Id. On September 24, 2021, Johnson filed objections to the R&R. Dkt. 24. 7 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 8 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or 9 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 10 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 11 Johnson objects to the R&R’s recommendation to deny her motion to proceed IFP 12 in part because she has been granted IFP in other cases. Dkt. 24 at 1. But IFP status is 13 unique to each case, and the Court shall dismiss the case if it determines that the action 14 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 15 Johnson further objects because she did not consent to a Magistrate Judge presiding over 16 court proceedings. Dkt. 24 at 1. The Local Rules allow for Magistrate Judges to rule upon 17 applications to proceed IFP. MJR 1(h). The remainder of Johnson’s objections are not 18 specific to the R&R. “Courts are not obligated to review vague or generalized objections 19 to an R&R; a petitioner must provide specific written objections.” Ybarra v. Martel, No. 20 09cv1188-LAB (AJB), 2011 WL 613380, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011). The Court 21 agrees with the R&R that Johnson’s proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim 22 1 upon which relief may be granted and that allowing for an additional amendment would 2 be futile. 3 The Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining 4 record, does hereby find and order as follows: 5 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 6 (2) Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; 7 (3) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 8 (4) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 9 Dated this 15th day of November, 2021. A 10 11 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Document Info

Docket Number: 3:21-cv-05539

Filed Date: 11/15/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/4/2024