Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565AN

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., d/b/a Alaska General Seafoods, a Delaware corporation; and LIBERTY PACKING, Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR LLC, a Washington limited liability company ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiffs, RECOMMENDATION

vs.

PACIFIC PREDATOR, AK Registration No. AK3565AN, its engines, machinery, appurtenances, etc., in rem; BRYAN HOWEY, in personam; DANA HOWEY, in personam; and ALASKA WILD EXPORTS, LLC, in personam,

Defendants.

Before the Court at Docket 71 is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs responded in opposition at Docket 78. Defendants filed a reply at Docket 81. The Motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 100, Judge Reardon issued his “Findings and Recommendations on Motion to Dismiss Under 12(b)(6)” (the “Report and Recommendation”), in which he recommended that the Motion be denied in its entirety. Defendants did not file written objections. This 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.” 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.”1 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.”2

Judge Reardon recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Dismiss at Docket 71. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. With no objections filed by Defendants, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation at Docket 100. The Court will issue an Order regarding the pending Report and Recommendation at Docket 87 under separate cover.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion at Docket 71 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Joshua M. Kindred JOSHUA M. KINDRED United States District Judge

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 2 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.”).