Opinion
C23-1160-JCC
02-05-2024
RAY CLARENCE ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. WEAVER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. No. 30) and Defendants' objections (Dkt. No. 29) to the Amended Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Grady J. Leupold, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 27). Having thoroughly considered the R&R and the relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES the objections and ADOPTS the Amended 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).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 27) is ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' objections (Dkt. No. 29) are OVERRULED.
3. Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. No. 30) are OVERRULED.
4. Plaintiff's claims against King County, the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, and Allen Nance are dismissed with prejudice.
5. Plaintiff's 14th Amendment claim against Sergeant Weaver is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. Plaintiff is INSTRUCTED to cure his complaint as to this issue no later than February 19, 2024.
6. Defendants' motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim.
7. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable Grady J. Leupold.