USA v. Filoialii

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KIRT SAINILA FILOIALII,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cr-00052-JMK-MMS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are Mr. Filoialii’s Motion to Suppress at Docket 136, with
sealed exhibits at Docket 138. 	The Motion to Suppress was referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble. 	The Government responded in opposition at
Docket 142. Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and Recommendations at Docket 144,
in which he recommended that the motion be denied. 	Mr. Filoialii filed objections the
Final Report and Recommendation at Dockets 145.
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 or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2 But as to those topics on which
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
2 Id.
Case 3:21-cr-00052-JMK-MMS Document 146 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 2

United States v. Filoialii 	Case No. 3:21-cr-00052-JMK
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 2
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.”3
Mr. Filoialii objects to the Final Report and Recommendation on two
grounds: (1) Magistrate Scoble’s assessment that D.T.’s medical records support probable
cause; and (2) Mr. Filoialii has made a sufficient showing to merit a hearing pursuant to
Franks v. Delaware.4 The Court has reviewed the Motion to Suppress, the sealed exhibits,
the Government’s response, and Mr. Filoialii’s objections. Further, the Court
independently evaluated the factual and legal arguments raised in Mr. Filoialii’s objections.
Upon its review, the Court finds Mr. Filoialii’s objections lack merit.5
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to
Suppress. The Court has reviewed the Final Report and Recommendations and agrees with
its analyses. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and Recommendation at
Docket 144. The Motion to Suppress at Docket 136 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
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.”).
4 Docket 145.
5 United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (articulating that “the district
court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).
Case 3:21-cr-00052-JMK-MMS Document 146 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 2