Finney v. Howey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
BRANNON FINNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRYAN R. HOWEY, and his marital
community,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00289-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 17 is Defendant Bryan R. Howey’s Motion to
Vacate Judgment under Rule 60(b)(4). The matter was referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 28, Judge Reardon issued a Report
and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Motion to Vacate
Judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) be denied. Mr. Howey filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation at Docket 29 and Mr. Finney filed a reply to the objections
at Docket 30.
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-00289-SLG-KFR Document 31 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:20-cv-00289-SLG-KFR, Finney v. Howey
Order re Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 3
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 Court has considered de novo Defendant’s objections and finds as
follows:
Objection #1 relates to the comment in the report that a default judgment
was entered against Defendant, who failed to explain his failure to appear.
Defendant argues that “none of this affects the legal issues” before the Court. The
objection is overruled, as the default judgment did shift the burden of proof on
jurisdiction to Defendant.
Objection #2 asserts that the report “simply concludes that the ‘contract is
maritime’ 	without 	analysis” 	and 	only 	cites 	to 	cases 	involving 	seamen’s
employment.4 	But the magistrate judge devoted approximately four pages to an
analysis of this issue, and on de novo review, the Court adopts and agrees with
that analysis. While Kossick v. United Fruit Co. did address an alleged oral
agreement between a shipowner and a seaman,5 the magistrate judge also cited
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).
4 Docket 29 at 2.
5 365 U.S. 731 (1961)
Case 3:20-cv-00289-SLG-KFR Document 31 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:20-cv-00289-SLG-KFR, Finney v. Howey
Order re Report and Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
several cases involving other types of maritime contracts—most notably Norfolk
Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby.6
Objection #3 asserts that the regulation of fisheries and enforcement of state
laws 	has 	been 	well 	established 	to 	be 	outside 	admiralty 	jurisdiction, 	citing
Manchester v. Massachusetts.7 But that case is inapposite, as it recognized the
right of the State of Massachusetts to regulate the fishing industry on the coasts
and tidewaters of the state, while noting that the state law in question did not
conflict “neither with the admiralty jurisdiction of any court of the United States
conferred by congress, nor with any law of congress whatever.”8 In contrast, this
case involves a maritime contract between two private parties
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 to Vacate Judgment under Rule
60(b)(4) at Docket 17 is DENIED.
DATED this 19th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6 543 U.S. 14 (2004) (holding federal law applies to interpretation of bills of lading for
transportation of cargo by ocean carrier).
7 139 U.S. 240 (1891).
8 Id. at 260.
Case 3:20-cv-00289-SLG-KFR Document 31 Filed 12/19/22 Page 3 of 3