USA v. Bachmeier

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN CURTIS BACHMEIER,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 243, 262, 273, 277 AND
289/290
Before the Court are five pending motions filed by Defendant Steven Curtis
Bachmeier.
1. Motion to Dismiss, Docket 243
In this motion, Mr. Bachmeier seeks dismissal of this action for lack of
jurisdiction. A response in opposition was filed at Docket 250. The motion
was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith. At
Docket 268, Judge Smith issued her Final Report and Recommendation, in
which she recommended that the motion be denied, after noting that the
motion restates claims previously brought by the defense no fewer than
three times.1 No objections to the Final Report and Recommendation were
filed.
1 Docket 268 at 1.
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 310 Filed 12/26/19 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:17-cr-103-SLG-DMS, USA v. Bachmeier
Order re Defendant’s Motions at Dockets 243, 262, 273, 277, 289/290
Page 2 of 4
2. Motion for Sanctions and Contempt Order, Docket 262
In this motion, Mr. Bachmeier seeks sanctions and an order of contempt
against Mr. Bachmeier’s stand-by counsel and a paralegal. No response to
this motion was filed. The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate
Judge Deborah M. Smith. At Docket 296, Judge Smith issued her Final
Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended that the motion
be denied. No objections to the Final Report and Recommendation were
filed.
3. Motion to Dismiss and Hearing, Docket 273
In this motion, Mr. Bachmeier raises concerns about his access to the Court.
A response in opposition was filed at Docket 282. This motion was referred
to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith. At Docket 299,
Judge Smith issued a Final Report and Recommendation, in which she
recommended that the motion be denied, reasoning that no constitutional
violation had been adequately alleged. No objections to the Final Report
and Recommendation were filed.
4. Motion for Order for Bonds to be Filed and Hearing, Docket 277
In this motion, Mr. Bachmeier takes issue with the fringe on the Court’s flags,
and requests bonds and an evidentiary hearing. A response in opposition
was filed at Docket 285. This motion was referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith. At Docket 301, Judge Smith issued a
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 310 Filed 12/26/19 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:17-cr-103-SLG-DMS, USA v. Bachmeier
Order re Defendant’s Motions at Dockets 243, 262, 273, 277, 289/290
Page 3 of 4
Final Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended that the
motion and request for hearing be denied. No objections to the Final Report
and Recommendation were filed.
5. Motions for Acquittal, Dockets 289 and 290
In these motions, Mr. Bachmeier asserts he should be acquitted because
the government never responded to his notice at Docket 266 or
accompanying statement at Docket 266-1. A response in opposition was
filed at Docket 294, in which it maintained the motions were untimely and
did not state a basis for relief. This motion was referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith. At Docket 302, Judge Smith issued a
Final Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended that the
motion be denied. No objections to the Final Report and Recommendation
were filed.
The Reports and Recommendations are now all 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.”2 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
2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3 Id.
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 310 Filed 12/26/19 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:17-cr-103-SLG-DMS, USA v. Bachmeier
Order re Defendant’s Motions at Dockets 243, 262, 273, 277, 289/290
Page 4 of 4
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 deny each of the
motions. The Court has reviewed each of the Final Reports and
Recommendations and agrees with their analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts
each of the Final Reports and Recommendations in their entirety, and IT IS
ORDERED that the motions at Dockets 243, 262, 273, 277, 289, and 290 are each
DENIED.
DATED this 26th day of December, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 310 Filed 12/26/19 Page 4 of 4