Jobe v. Alaska Department of Corrections Health Services et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JEFFREY CLYDE JOBE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS HEALTH
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00245-SLG
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court at Docket 39 is Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion. The motion was referred
to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 46, Judge Reardon
issued a Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion
be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims at Docket 1 be dismissed with prejudice. 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 3:20-cv-00245-SLG-KFR Document 47 Filed 02/29/24 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-00245-SLG, Jobe v. Alaska DOC Health Services, et al.
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 2 of 2
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2
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.”3
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, and IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims at Docket 1 are DISMISSED
with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 29th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Id.
3 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-00245-SLG-KFR Document 47 Filed 02/29/24 Page 2 of 2