Joseph v. Department of Corrections et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
SERENA MICHELLE JOSEPH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00294-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court at Docket 58 is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Civil Rule 56. Plaintiff responded with opposition to the motion at
Docket 73 to which Plaintiff filed a reply at Docket 76. The motion was referred to
the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 78, Judge Reardon
issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the
motion be granted. After Ms. Joseph’s counsel withdrew, the Court accorded Ms.
Joseph until April 18, 2024, to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
1 However, 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 Docket 83.
Case 3:20-cv-00294-SLG-KFR Document 84 Filed 04/26/24 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-00294-SLG-KFR, Joseph v. DOC, et al.
Order re Report and Recommendation on Motion for Summary Judgment
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
However, § 636(b)(1) does not “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.”4
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment. 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 Motion
for Summary Judgement at Docket 58 is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 26th day of April 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3 Id.
4 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Case 3:20-cv-00294-SLG-KFR Document 84 Filed 04/26/24 Page 2 of 2