Jenkins v. ACDA/Easy Park

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA NATHANIEL JENKINS, Plaintiff, v.

ACDA/EASY PARK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00217-SLG Defendant.

ORDER RE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DISPOSITION OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTS On September 4, 2020, pro se Plaintiff Nathanael Jenkins filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Alaska law against Defendant ACDA/Easy Park alleging he was unlawfully discriminated against and terminated from his employment at ACDA/Easy Park in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, specifically, filing a harassment complaint against a co-worker.1 The case was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle Reardon.2 At Docket 41, Judge Reardon issued his Proposed Findings of Fact and

Recommendations for the Disposition of Motions for Summary Judgment, in which he recommended that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 19, and that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 22. No objections to the report were filed.

1 Dkt. 1. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”3 A court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”4

But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”5 The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations for the Disposition of Motions for Summary Judgments and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the report in its entirety,

and IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 19 is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 22 is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment consistent with this order.

DATED this 27th day of July, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 4 Id. 5 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). Case No. 3:20-cv-00217-SLG-KFR, Jenkins v. ACDA/Easy Park