Baus v. Haynes

• Decision Date: 17 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2:21-cv-00225-TL
• Parties: JEFFREY JOSEPH BAUS, Petitioner, v. RON HAYNES, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

JEFFREY JOSEPH BAUS, Petitioner,
v.
RON HAYNES, Respondent.

No. 2:21-cv-00225-TL

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

June 17, 2022

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL, REQUESTING EXPEDITED REVIEW, AND TO COMPEL JUDGMENT

Tana Lin United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, Chief United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 25), Petitioner Jeffrey J. Baus' objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26), and Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 29). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's objections, Respondent's response, and the remaining record, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, OVERRULES the objections, and DISMISSES the Petition. Therefore, the Court also STRIKES as moot Petitioner's Motion to Appoint

1

Counsel (Dkt. No. 27), Petitioner's Motion Requesting Expedited Review (Dkt. No. 30), and Petitioner's Motion to Compel Judgment (Dkt. No. 33).

A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (the Court “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); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party properly objects when the party files “specific written objections” to the report and recommendation as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2).

A jury convicted petitioner of second-degree rape and second-degree assault of R.M. in April 2017. Dkt. No. 20-1 at 2. Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 3) which he amended (Dkt. No. 12). Petitioner then withdrew four grounds for his petition. Dkt. No. 17. Magistrate Judge Creatura issued a Report and Recommendation on the remaining four grounds. Dkt. No. 25. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation as well as the seven objections filed by Petitioner.

The Court is extremely limited in its review of habeas petitions and must follow the law which requires:

An application for a writ of

...