Winters v. Nighswonger et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
RONALD MILES WINTERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZANE NIGHSWONGER, JASON
MATA, and MARK TACACA,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00146-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 18 is Defendants Zane Nighswonger, Jason
Mata, and March Tacaca’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Winters did
not file a response to the motion. The motion was referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 26, Judge Reardon 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-00146-SLG-KFR Document 27 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:19-cv-00146-SLG-KFR, Winters v. Nighswonger, et al.
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 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
Judgment at Docket 18 is GRANTED and all claims against Defendants are
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 25th day of January, 2022, 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-00146-SLG-KFR Document 27 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 2