Joseph v. Department of Corrections

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

SERENA MICHELLE JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF Case No. 3:20-cv-00294-SLG-KFR CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court at Docket 58 is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Civil Rule 56. Plaintiff responded with opposition to the motion at Docket 73 to which Plaintiff filed a reply at Docket 76. The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 78, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be granted. After Ms. Joseph’s counsel withdrew, the Court accorded Ms. Joseph until April 18, 2024, to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. 1 However, no objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 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

1 Docket 83. part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”2 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.”3

However, § 636(b)(1) does not “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.”4 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgement at Docket 58 is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.

DATED this 26th day of April 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3 Id. 4 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Case No. 3:20-cv-00294-SLG-KFR, Joseph v. DOC, et al.