Bell v. Olson ( 2022 )

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 WARREN E. BELL, CASE NO. C21-0781-JCC-SKV 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 DAVID OLSON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Warren Bell’s objection (Dkt. No. 58) to 16 the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States 17 Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 56), and his objection to Judge Vaughan’s order denying his motion 18 for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 54). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ 19 briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 56), 20 OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 54, 58), and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 21 Relief (Dkt. No. 50) for the reasons explained below. 22 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in Snohomish County 23 Superior Court (Dkt. No. 1-2) against Trooper David Olson and Nurse Autumn Kostelecky, and 24 against the Snohomish County Jail and Snohomish County Risk Management, which Defendants 25 removed to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff later moved to amend his complaint, seeking to 26 omit the original County Defendants and to add Snohomish County and Snohomish County 1 Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Hayley Bigoni as Defendants. (Dkt. No. 41.) Judge Vaughan 2 denied that motion, finding the proposed amendment futile. (Dkt. No. 46 at 12.) Plaintiff then 3 moved for relief from the judgment (Dkt. No. 50) and filed an objection (Dkt. No. 54) to the 4 order denying his motion to amend. Judge Vaughan recommended Plaintiff’s motion for relief be 5 denied because her denial did not present a final judgment, order, or proceeding as is required 6 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Dkt. No. 56 at 3.) Plaintiff objected to that R&R. 7 (Dkt. No. 58.) 8 De novo review of a magistrate judge’s R&R is not required when a party fails to direct 9 the Court to a specific error. United States v. Diaz-Lemus, 2010 WL 2573748, slip op. at 1 (D. 10 Ariz. 2010); see also Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. 11 Wash. 2020) (district courts only review de novo “those portions of the report and 12 recommendation to which specific written objection is made”). While pro se litigants are held to 13 a more lenient standard, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), that does not excuse 14 them from making proper objections, see, e.g., Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 15 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, he is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he 16 litigates.”). 17 Here, Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R (Dkt. No. 58) is unresponsive. He does not argue 18 that Judge Vaughan’s earlier order was a final judgment, order, or proceeding. (See generally id.) 19 Instead, he focuses on evidence he wishes to use in his case against David Olson. (Id.) Because 20 this was not the issued addressed in the R&R, Plaintiff has not lodged a proper objection to the 21 R&R. Therefore, the court considers it unopposed. 22 Nor is Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Vaughan’s earlier denial (Dkt. No. 54) responsive to 23 that order. Instead, he points to the loss of evidence that he believed would cure the defect Judge 24 Vaughan identified in her order. (Id.) But as Judge Vaughan stated in her R&R, “the order did 25 not preclude Plaintiff from again seeking to amend with a sufficient claim.” (Dkt. No. 56 at 3.) 26 That would be entirely different from objecting to a well-reasoned R&R with irrelevant 1 arguments. 2 For the foregoing reasons: 3 (1) The Court APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 56). 4 (2) Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 58) to the R&R is OVERRULED. 5 (3) Plaintiff’s motion for relief (Dkt. No. 50) from the order denying his motion to amend 6 his complaint (Dkt. No. 46) is DENIED. 7 (4) Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 54) to the order denying his motion to amend his 8 complaint (Dkt. No. 46) is OVERRULED. 9 (5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge 10 Vaughan. 11 12 DATED this 25th day of April 2022. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26