Hiratsuka v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ALLEN HIRATSUKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
EARL HOUSER,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 1 is Petitioner Allen Hiratsuka’s Motion for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The motion was referred to the
Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble. Judge Scoble ordered Mr.
Hiratsuka to file an amended petition or to file a notice that none would be filed.1 Mr.
Hiratsuka did not file an amended petition and did not file a notice. Judge Scoble
ordered the State of Alaska (“State”) to respond to Mr. Hiratsuka’s petition and the
State filed a response at Docket 34. Mr. Hiratsuka filed a reply to the State’s
response at Docket 37. An evidentiary hearing on the motion was held before Judge
Scoble on August 25, 2021.2 At Docket 58, Judge Scoble issued his Report and
Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be denied without
prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). No objections to the Report and
Recommendation were filed.
1 Docket 11.
2 Docket 44.
Case 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS Document 63 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS, Hiratsuka v. Houser
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
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 [28U.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 magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 the Motion for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED without prejudice. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
DATED this 4th day of February, 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 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS Document 63 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 2