ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 48), and Petitioner Thomas William Sinclair Richey's ("Richey") objections to the R&R (Dkt. 49).

On September 21, 2015, Judge Strombom filed the R&R recommending that the Court dismiss Richey's petition because it is time barred. Dkt. 48. On October 10, 2015, Richey filed objections. Dkt. 49.

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, Richey objects to the R&R on multiple grounds. Richey argues that, for purposes of timing, the relevant judgment should be the 2010 amended judgment and not his original 1987 judgment. Dkt. 49 at 2-5. In light of the Ninth Circuit opinion, the Court agrees with Richey. See Richey v. Sinclair, 585 Fed. App'x 636, 637 (9th Cir. 2014) ("the 2010 corrected judgment removed an invalid basis for Richey's conviction, i.e., attempted felony murder, and was a new, intervening judgment."). Regardless of how many times the Washington state courts have reached a contrary conclusion, the Ninth Circuit opinion is the law of the case. As such, the 2010 judgment is the relevant judgment for computing time periods. Therefore, the Court declines to adopt the R&R's conclusion that the time period for petitioner to file a federal habeas action expired on April 23, 1997.

The Court has reviewed the record and is unable to resolve the matter without further briefing. For example, the government's most recent response is based on the premise that the Ninth Circuit's conclusion is "frivolous." Dkt. 40 at 11. That is an argument for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court, not this Court. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Richey's objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows: