Kvasnikoff v. Seiferrt

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KENNETH WAYNE KVASNIKOFF, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE SEIFERRT, Case No. 3:21-cv-00253-SLG-KFR Defendant.

ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court at Docket 1 is Plaintiff’s Prisoner’s Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42, U.S.C. § 1983. At Docket 2 the Court issued an Order Re:

Deficient Filing, which provided instructions on how to file an application to waive prepayment of the filing fee or to pay the filing fee, in order to properly commence a civil action. Plaintiff responded by filing Prisoner’s Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee at Docket 3. This matter was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon for screening. At Docket 5, Judge

Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that all pending motions should be denied as moot. 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 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 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.”2

But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”3 The magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice and deny all pending motions as moot. The Court has reviewed the

Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this dismissal shall be a strike as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment

accordingly. DATED this 9th day of March, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 2 Id. 3 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. 3:21-cv-00253-SLG-KFR, Kvasnikoff v. Seiferrt