Ludvick v. Reigh et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LEE J. LUDVICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTINA L. REIGH, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00036-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE SCREENING ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before 	the 	Court 	at 	Docket 	3 	is 	Plaintiff 	Lee 	J. 	Ludvick’s 	Prisoner’s
Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	The matter was referred
to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 7 Judge Reardon
issued 	a 	Screening 	Order 	and 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	in 	which 	he
recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and the futility of amendment and, that a
dismissal under these circumstances should be a strike as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) and Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, et al. 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 172 (2020). 1
No objections to the Screening Order and Report and Recommendation
were filed.
1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner who has filed more than three actions or appeals in any
federal court in the United States that are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, from bringing any other actions without prepayment of
fees unless the prisoner can demonstrate that he or she is in “immediate danger of serious
physical injury.”
Case 3:22-cv-00036-SLG-KFR Document 8 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:22-cv-00036-SLG-KFR, Ludvick v. Reigh, et al.
Order re Screening Order and 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.”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
However, § 636(b)(1) does not “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.” 4
The 	Court 	has 	reviewed 	the 	Screening 	Order 	and 	Report 	and
Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that this action
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted and the futility of amendment. 	This dismissal shall be counted as a
STRIKE as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, et al.
590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 172 (2020). A final judgment shall be issued.
DATED this 31st day of August, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3 Id.
4 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Case 3:22-cv-00036-SLG-KFR Document 8 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 2