Dancer v. Seattle Hempfest

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DEBBIE DANCER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEATTLE HEMPFEST, a/k/a
Seattle Events,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00288-SLG-DMS
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 13 is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
At Docket 14, Defendant responded in opposition to the motion for judgment and
moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff
filed a reply at Docket 15. The motions were referred to the Honorable Magistrate
Judge Deborah M. Smith. At Docket 16, Judge Smith issued her Report and
Recommendation, in which she recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment be denied and that Defendant’s motion for dismissal be converted to a
motion for summary judgment and that the converted motion for summary
judgment be granted. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation
at Docket 17. No reply to the objections was filed.
Case 3:20-cv-00288-SLG-DMS Document 18 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:20-cv-00288-SLG, Dancer v. Seattle Hempfest
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 3
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 deny Plaintiff’s motion
for judgment. The magistrate judge also recommended that Defendant’s motion
to dismiss be converted to a motion for summary judgment and that the motion be
granted. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and reviewed
the record de novo and agrees with the analysis of the magistrate judge. Seattle
Hempfest is not liable for the alleged defamatory conduct of Alaska Hempfest’s
directors. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment is DENIED. IT
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 3:20-cv-00288-SLG-DMS Document 18 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:20-cv-00288-SLG, Dancer v. Seattle Hempfest
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is converted to a
motion for summary judgment and that motion is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment accordingly.
DATED this 27th day of August, 2021 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00288-SLG-DMS Document 18 Filed 08/27/21 Page 3 of 3