United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
SUDESHKUMAR S. KOTHARI, Plaintiff,
JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DISMISSING PETITIONER'S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the petition of Sudeshkumar Kothari ("Petitioner") for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 7.) The Honorable Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 31), issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Dkt. No. 31) advising this Court to deny Petitioner's habeas petition. Petitioner submitted a "Motion to Stay" the R&R, which contains objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 32.)
After reviewing each of Petitioner's objections de novo, and having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES the habeas petition for the reasons explained herein.
Petitioner is incarcerated in the Coyote Ridge Correction Center following his 2012 conviction of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and violation of a court order. (Dkt No. 7-1, Ex. G.) Division One of the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld his conviction on March 17, 2014; (Dkt. No. 7-1, Ex. A) and denied reconsideration on March 31, 2014 (Dkt. No. 7-1, Ex. E). The Washington State Supreme Court denied review. (Dkt No. 7-3, Ex. P.)
Plaintiff filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 on October 7, 2014 (Dkt. No. 7) and moved to amend the state court record (Dkt. Nos. 15-16; 19). Respondent submitted a response to Plaintiff's motion to amend. (Dkt. No. 17). Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss Respondent's Response ("motion to strike"). (Dkt. No. 20.) On January 27, 2015, Respondent answered Plaintiff's habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 21.) On March 25, 2015, Judge Theiler recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's motions to amend the record, deny Petitioner's motion to strike, and dismiss the habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 31.) In lieu of submitting objections to the R&R, Petitioner filed a "Motion to Stay' to Order Full Criminal Investigation by the FBI, Pursuant to Petitioner's Sovereign Rights' to Equal Justice" ("Motion to Stay") on April 6, 2015. (Dkt. No. 32.) Judge Theiler did not respond to Petitioner's objections.
A. Standard of Review
A district court reviews de novo the parts of a Magistrate's report to which any party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A party properly objects under the Federal Rules when he or she files "specific written objections" to the magistrate judge's report. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). General objections or summaries of arguments already presented, however, have the same effect as no objection at all. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Svcs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
B. Petitioner's Objections
Petitioner has not filed formal objections to the R&R. Instead, he filed a "Motion to Stay" (Dkt. No. 32) in which he requests a stay of the R&R pending a criminal investigation by the FBI.
1. Pending Motions
The "Motion to Stay" does not address Judge Theiler's recommendation to deny Petitioner's motions to amend the record (Dkt. No. 15-16; 19) or his motion to strike (Dkt. No. 20). The Court finds Judge ...