Hughes v. AT&T et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JONATHAN CHARLES HUGHES,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a Civil Rights action filed by self-represented prisoner Jonathan
Hughes. In his Complaint at Docket 1, Mr. Hughes named several defendants in
the case caption and additional defendants in the body of the case. At Docket 3,
Mr. Hughes filed an Application to Waive the Filing Fee. At Docket 6, Mr. Hughes
filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel.
The case has been referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M.
Smith. At Docket 8, Judge Smith issued a Final Report and Recommendation in
which she recommended that the Complaint at Docket 1 be dismissed without
prejudice, the Application to Waive the Filing Fee be Docket 3 be deferred, and the
Motion to Appoint Counsel be denied without prejudice. No objections to the Final
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
Case 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS Document 10 Filed 12/27/19 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS, Hughes v. AT&T, et al.
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 2
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 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 Complaint at Docket 1 is
DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to
Appoint Counsel at Docket 6 is DENIED without prejudice. The Application to
Waive the Filing Fee at Docket 3 is DEFERRED. The Court notes that Mr. Hughes
recently filed an Amended Complaint (Docket 9) that will be screened in due
course.
DATED this 27th day of December, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS Document 10 Filed 12/27/19 Page 2 of 2