From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Gronseth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Oct 25, 2018
CASE NO. C16-5775 BHS (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. C16-5775 BHS

10-25-2018

JESS R. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA GRONSETH, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 80, and Plaintiff Jess Smith's ("Smith") objections to the R&R, Dkt. 81.

On August 16, 2018, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment and close the case. Dkt. 80. On August 20, 2018, Smith objected. Dkt. 81.

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

In this case, Smith objects to almost every portion of the R&R. Smith, however, fails to present any persuasive argument in support of his position. Smith claims that Defendants violated his right of access to the courts by failing to provide access to out-of- state case law. Judge Christel concluded that Smith failed to establish any actual injury based on the denial of Smith's petition to the Supreme Court or denial of his personal restraint petition in state court. Dkt. 80 at 5-10. Although Smith objects to these conclusion, he fails to establish how any case from another state involving that state's laws would assist him in drafting a petition based on federal law or a petition for relief under Washington's laws. Thus, he has failed to show that Judge Christel committed any error.

Second, Smith objects to Judge Christel's recommendation that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith's remaining state law claims. Smith, however, fails to provide any persuasive reason to retain these claims after the Court dismisses his only federal claim. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Smith's objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

(1) The R&R is ADOPTED;

(2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, Smith's First Amendment claim is DISMISSED with prejudice, and Smith's remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice;

(3) Smith's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for purposes of appeal; and

(4) The Clerk shall enter JUDGMENT and close this case.

Dated this 25th day of October, 2018.

/s/_________

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Smith v. Gronseth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Oct 25, 2018
CASE NO. C16-5775 BHS (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2018)
Case details for

Smith v. Gronseth

Case Details

Full title:JESS R. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA GRONSETH, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Oct 25, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. C16-5775 BHS (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2018)