Stevens v. F.B.I.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA TY WELLS STEVENS, Plaintiff, v.

F.B.I., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Before the Court at Docket 7 is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The complaint was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith for the initial screening required by federal law.1 At Docket 9, Judge Smith issued her Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended that the Second

Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, for failure to cure repeated deficiencies in the pleadings, and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Smith also recommended that the dismissal be without leave to amend in federal court but without prejudice in order for Mr. Stevens to pursue any viable claims in Alaska state court, and that the Clerk of

Court enter a Final Judgment in this case. 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.” 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 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.”4

The magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and no objections to the report have been made. 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 Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend in federal court but without prejudice. In order for Mr. Stevens to pursue any viable claims in Alaska state court. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgement in this case. DATED this 23rd day of June, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3 Id. 4 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. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. F.B.I.