Opinion
C22-5064-JCC
07-28-2023
DARYL ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY CORRECTIONS, et. al., Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. No. 40) to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 39). Having thoroughly considered the R&R and the relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES the objections and ADOPTS the R&R for the reasons stated herein.
A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's R&R to which a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A party properly objects when he or she files “specific written objections” to the R&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). In contrast, general objections or summaries of arguments previously presented have the same effect as no objection at all since they do not focus the Court's attention on any specific issues for review. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Garvey v. Uttecht, 2020 WL 5946157, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2020).
Plaintiff alleges he never received a copy of the underlying motion to dismiss, which was the subject of Judge Vaughan's R&R. (Dkt. No. 40 at 1-2.) Although courts generally must construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are nonetheless bound by the rules of procedure. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court need only review parts of the magistrate judge's disposition that have been properly objected to. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Here, Plaintiff fails to object to any portion of the R&R.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 39) is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. No. 40) are OVERRULED.
3. Plaintiff's second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 33) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan.