Redfox v. Jones et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WYATT N. REDFOX,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON JONES, et al.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 18 is Plaintiff Redfox’s Second or Subsequent
Prisoner’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At Docket 20,
the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble issued his Report and
Recommendation, in which he recommended that the amended complaint be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) because Mr. Redfox failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mr. Redfox filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation at Docket 21.
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 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 22 Filed 10/01/21 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS, Redfox v. Jones
Order re Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 3
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 dismiss the Second or
Subsequent Prisoner’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court has reviewed the record de novo and the Report and Recommendati on
and agrees with its analysis. Despite being instructed twice on the requirements
to state a viable cause of action, Mr. Redfox has not been able to do so. As such,
it appears that further opportunity to amend would be futile. Notably, in his
objections, Mr. Redfox writes about the needs of all inmates at the ACC. However,
it is “well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28
U.S.C.] § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or
entities.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that amended complaint is DISMISSED without
leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment
accordingly.
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 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 22 Filed 10/01/21 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS, Redfox v. Jones
Order re Report and Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
DATED this 1st day of October, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 22 Filed 10/01/21 Page 3 of 3