Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al. vs. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565AN, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., d/b/a
Alaska General Seafoods, a Delaware
corporation; and LIBERTY PACKING,
LLC, a Washington limited liability
company
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PACIFIC PREDATOR, AK
Registration No. AK3565AN, its
engines, machinery, appurtenances,
etc., in rem; BRYAN HOWEY, in
personam; DANA HOWEY, in
personam; and ALASKA WILD
EXPORTS, LLC, in personam,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 71 is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim (the “Motion”). 	Plaintiffs responded in opposition at Docket 78.
Defendants filed a reply at Docket 81. 	The Motion was referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. 	At Docket 100, Judge Reardon issued his “Findings
and 	Recommendations 	on 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	Under 	12(b)(6)” 	(the 	“Report 	and
Recommendation”), in which he recommended that the Motion be denied in its entirety.
Defendants did not file written objections.
Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 106 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 2

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al. vs. Pacific Predator, et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 2
This 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.” 	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.”1 But as to those topics
on which 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.”2
Judge Reardon recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for
Dismiss at Docket 71. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees
with its analysis. With no objections filed by Defendants, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation at Docket 100. 	The Court will issue an Order regarding the pending
Report and Recommendation at Docket 87 under separate cover.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion at Docket 71 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
2 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 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 106 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 2