From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bale v. Boyer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jan 15, 2015
CASE NO. C14-5513 BHS (W.D. Wash. Jan. 15, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. C14-5513 BHS

01-15-2015

JOHN MICHAEL BALE, Plaintiff, v. STEVE BOYER and NED NEWLIN, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 32), and Plaintiff John Bale's ("Bale") objection to the R&R (Dkt. 33).

On August 6, 2014, Bale filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Defendants Steve Boyer and Ned Newlin ("Defendants"). Dkt. 10. Bale alleges that he was denied access to Kitsap County Jail's law library during his criminal trial. Id. at 3.

On September 19, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss Bale's complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 26. On November 21, 2014, Judge Creatura issued the R&R recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion. Dkt. 32.

On December 12, 2014, Bale filed a one-sentence objection to Judge Creatura's R&R. Dkt. 33. The Court has reviewed Bale's objection and finds it is without merit.

Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Bale's objection, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

(1) The R&R is ADOPTED;



(2) This action is DISMISSED; and



(3) Bale's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of appeal.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2015.

/s/_________

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Bale v. Boyer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jan 15, 2015
CASE NO. C14-5513 BHS (W.D. Wash. Jan. 15, 2015)
Case details for

Bale v. Boyer

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MICHAEL BALE, Plaintiff, v. STEVE BOYER and NED NEWLIN, Defendants.

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

Date published: Jan 15, 2015

Citations

CASE NO. C14-5513 BHS (W.D. Wash. Jan. 15, 2015)

Citing Cases

Romero v. HP, Inc.

The FAC contains no facts, let alone specific facts as required under Rule 9(b), that show that Defendant…