Hughes v. AT&T et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JOHNATHAN CHARLES HUGHES,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-179-SLG-DMS
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 9 is Defendant’s First Amended Complaint. The
document was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith for
screening. At Docket 11, Judge Smith issued a Final Report and
Recommendation, in which she recommended that the First Amended Complaint
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and
without leave to amend. Judge Smith further recommended that all pending
motions be denied as moot. No objections to the Final 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
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS Document 12 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:19-cv-179-SLG-DMS, Hughes v. AT&T, et al.
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 2
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 First
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and without leave to amend. The Court has reviewed the Final Report and
Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the
Final Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that the First Amended
Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and without leave to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending
motions are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final
judgment accordingly.
DATED this 16th day of March, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS Document 12 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 2