Jenkins v. ACDA/Easy Park

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
NATHANIEL JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACDA/EASY PARK,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00217-SLG
ORDER RE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE DISPOSITION OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
On September 4, 2020, pro se Plaintiff Nathanael Jenkins filed a Complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Alaska law against Defendant ACDA/Easy Park
alleging 	he 	was 	unlawfully 	discriminated 	against 	and 	terminated 	from 	his
employment at ACDA/Easy Park in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity,
specifically, filing a harassment complaint against a co-worker. 1
The case was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle Reardon.2
At 	Docket 	41, 	Judge 	Reardon 	issued 	his 	Proposed 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and
Recommendations for the Disposition of Motions for Summary Judgment, in which
he recommended that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
at Docket 19, and that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at
Docket 22. No objections to the report were filed.
1 Dkt. 1.
2 Dkt. 26.
Case 3:20-cv-00217-SLG-KFR Document 45 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-00217-SLG-KFR, Jenkins v. ACDA/Easy Park
Order re Final R&R on Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 2 of 2
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.”3 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.” 4
But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution
nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings
and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” 5
The 	Court 	has 	reviewed 	the 	Proposed 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and
Recommendations for the Disposition of Motions for Summary Judgments and
agrees with its analysis. 	Accordingly, the Court adopts the report in its entirety,
and IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket
19 is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 22 is
DENIED. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment consistent with
this order.
DATED this 27th day of July, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
4 Id.
5 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 3:20-cv-00217-SLG-KFR Document 45 Filed 07/27/22 Page 2 of 2