Carney v. Lapinskas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
CRESS CARNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT LAPINSKAS,
et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00317-SLG-MMS
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 16 is defendants former Superintendent William
Lapinskas, Sergeant Matt Stanley, Sergeant Justin Ennis, and Criminal Justice
Technician Alexandra Gilmore’s Motion to Dismiss. No response was filed to the
motion. The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew
McCrary Scoble. At Docket 19, Judge Scoble issued his Report and
Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be granted. 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
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 3:19-cv-00317-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:19-cv-00317, Carney v. Lapinskas
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 grant the Motion to
Dismiss. 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 the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court
is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 25th day of August, 2021 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-00317-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/25/21 Page 2 of 2