The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
9
10
TONY LAMAR CARD, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05213-DGE
11
Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
12 v. RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO.
4)
13 NICHOLAS W. BROWN,
14 Defendant.
15
16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the
17 Honorable Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. (Dkt. No. 4.) The R&R recommends that
18 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) be denied under 28 U.S.C.
19 § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim. (Id. at 2–4.) The
20 R&R gave Plaintiff 14 days to file objections. (Id. at 5.) The day before the deadline, Plaintiff
21 filed a “Claim Against Unlawful Action” alleging that Judge Fricke, the undersigned, and other
22 judges were engaged in an unlawful conspiracy against him, including copies of orders
23 dismissing complaints in this and other cases. (See Dkt. No. 5.) After the deadline, Plaintiff
24
1 subsequently filed a second “Claim Against Unlawful Action” and a “Judicial Notice and
2 Freedom of Information Act Request” making similar allegations. (See Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.)
3 A district court reviews de novo “those portions of the report or specified proposed
4 findings or recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see
5 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the
6 magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). Objections to an R&R must
7 be “specific.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Mere incorporation of arguments from the underlying
8 motions, without identifying “what portions of the R&R” the objecting party “considers to be
9 incorrect,” does not constitute a specific objection, Amaro v. Ryan, 2012 WL 12702, at *1 (D.
10 Ariz. Jan. 4, 2012), and therefore does not give rise to a court’s obligation to conduct a de novo
11 review, Brandon v. Department of Corr., 2021 WL 5937685, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2021).
12 “In the absence of a specific objection, the [C]ourt need only satisfy itself that there is no ‘clear
13 error’ on the face of the record before adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.”
14 Venson v. Jackson, 2019 WL 1531271, at *1 (S.D. Cal. April 8, 2019).
15 Here, Plaintiff’s “Claim Against Unlawful Action” is not a proper objection and does not
16 trigger de novo review. Nonetheless, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed complaint and
17 reaches the same conclusion as the R&R, that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege any facts
18 that the Attorney General of Washington “unlawfully kidnapped” his son. (Dkt. No. 4 at 3,
19 quoting Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5.)
20 Therefore, the Court having considered the Report and Recommendation and the
21 remaining record de novo, does hereby find and order as follows:
22 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
23
24
1 (2) The Application to Proceed IFP (Dkt. 1) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED
2 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
3 (3) The Clerk shall enter JUDGMENT and close this case. The Clerk is directed to
4 send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Hon. Theresa L. Fricke.
5
6 Dated this 6th day of May, 2025.
7
a
8
David G. Estudillo
9 United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24