Rotchford v. Dep't of Corr.

Full title: FRASER ROTCHFORD, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Jul 1, 2019

CASE NO. 19-5023 RJB-JRC (W.D. Wash. Jul. 1, 2019)

Opinion

CASE NO. 19-5023 RJB-JRC

07-01-2019

FRASER ROTCHFORD, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.

ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. Dkt. 13. The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation, objections, and the remaining record.

The facts and procedural history are in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13) and are adopted here. The Report and Recommendation recommends dismissing this case without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to respond to the Court's orders to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Dkt. 13. The Plaintiff's objections do not address the Report and Recommendation and are difficult to understand. Dkt. 14. He asserts that he has been unlawfully transported to Clallam County, imprisoned indefinitely, and that community corrections employees are "conspiring to disrepute [sic] public health and safety through the administration of 'anti-psychotic' substance they know are causing homicidality [sic]." Id. He references due process and maintains that "absent any court's discretion subjecting defendants to involuntary treatment with such substances ostensibly without compensation as and in the hopes of one day being able to explain why they are behaving in that the manufacturer of such substances has publlcly [sic] . . . admitted they do not understand how their products in fact work." Id. The Plaintiff asserts that it "would serve human dignity and trust" that the case remain open and the Court "respond instructively as how pro se Plaintiff . . . should proceed." Id.

The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13) should be adopted. The Plaintiff was notified of the complaint's deficiencies, including its failure to name a proper defendant in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case and failure to assert any personal participation on the part of a defendant. Dkt. 9, at 3-4. The Plaintiff was instructed to "write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name or names of the person or persons who violated the right; (3) exactly what each individual or entity did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of each individual or entity is connected to the violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury plaintiff suffered because of the individuals' conduct." Id., at 4. He was given until March 22, 2019 to file a proposed amended complaint or show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Id. The Plaintiff moved for and was granted more time (until May 10, 2019) to respond or file the proposed amended complaint. Dkt. 12. The Plaintiff failed to respond. This Report and Recommendation followed. The Plaintiff's objections do not provide grounds to reject the Report and Recommendation. It should be adopted. The case should be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13) IS ADOPTED; and

This case IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura, all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

Dated this 1^st day of July, 2019.

/s/_________

ROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge