Keith-Joseph v. Saxby et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
KEITH JOSEPH TRACEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE SAXBY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00249-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 1 is Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to File Suit/Lien.
At Docket 2 the Court issued an Order re: Deficient Filing that instructed Plaintiff
on how to file a complaint and to either pay the filing fee or file an application to
waive the filing fee in order to properly commence a civil action. Plaintiff responded
by filing a Prisoner’s Complaint under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at
Docket 3. He also filed a civil cover sheet at Docket 4, and a Prisoner’s Application
to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee at Docket 5. The matter was referred to
the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon for screening. Judge Reardon
issued his Report and Recommendation at Docket 13, in which he recommended
that the action should be dismissed with prejudice and that all pending motions
should be denied as moot. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation at Docket 16.
Case 3:21-cv-00249-SLG-KFR Document 17 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:21-cv-00249-SLG-KFR, Tracey v. Saxby, et al.
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 3
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 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.”3
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss the action with
prejudice and deny all pending motions as moot. The Court has reviewed the
Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s objections, which primarily take issue
with the Report’s conclusion that the named Defendants are immune from this suit.
On de novo review, the Court finds the objections to be without merit. Accordingly,
the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and IT IS
ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; all pending motions
are DENIED AS MOOT.
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2 Id.
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.”).
Case 3:21-cv-00249-SLG-KFR Document 17 Filed 03/24/22 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:21-cv-00249-SLG-KFR, Tracey v. Saxby, et al.
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 3 of 3
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that this dismissal shall constitute a strike pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
DATED this 24th day of March, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:21-cv-00249-SLG-KFR Document 17 Filed 03/24/22 Page 3 of 3