Copeland v. Volland

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ROGER DAIL COPELAND, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHILLIP VOLLAND, Superior Court
Judge,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00262-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 2 is Plaintiff Copeland’s1 Prisoner’s Complaint
under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Civil Cover Sheet at Docket 1, and
Prisoner’s Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee at Docket 3. The
complaint and application were referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle
F. Reardon for screening in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. At
Docket 7, Judge Reardon issued his Final Report and Recommendation, in which
he recommended the action 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
1 Plaintiff is a self-represented prisoner.
Case 3:21-cv-00262-SLG-KFR Document 8 Filed 04/11/22 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:21-cv-00262-SLG-KFR, Copeland v. Volland
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 2
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”2 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.”3
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.”4
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss this action with
prejudice based on the absolute judicial immunity of Defendant for damages and
the futility of amendment. The Court has reviewed the Final Report and
Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED this 11th day of April, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3 Id.
4 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-00262-SLG-KFR Document 8 Filed 04/11/22 Page 2 of 2