Stevens v. F.B.I.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TY WELLS STEVENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
F.B.I., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS
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
1 28 U.S.C. § 1915€(2)(B).
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 17 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. F.B.I.
Order re Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 2
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 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 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 17 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 2