Eclips v. Houser et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LUNA ECLIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
EARL HOUSER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-197-SLG-MMS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before the Court at Docket 3 is Plaintiff Luna Eclips’ Motion to Amend
Caption to Include Additional Defendants at GCCC. At Docket 9, The Honorable
Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble directed Mr. Eclips to file an amended
complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by November 10, 2019. Because
neither has been submitted, at Docket 11 Judge Scoble issued his Final Report
and Recommendation with the recommendation that the case be dismissed and
all pending motions be denied as moot.
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
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 3:19-cv-00197-SLG-MMS Document 12 Filed 12/02/19 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:19-cv-00197-SLG-MMS, Eclips v. Houser, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 2
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 case and
that all pending motions, including the motion at Docket 3 to Amend Caption to
Include Additional Defendants at GCCC, be denied as moot. The Court has
reviewed the Final Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and Recommendation, and IT IS
ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED and all pending motions be DENIED as
moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 3:19-cv-00197-SLG-MMS Document 12 Filed 12/02/19 Page 2 of 2