Charles v. State of California et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MARVIN L. CHARLES, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00141-SLG
ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ORDER DISMISSAL FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION
Before the Court at Docket 1 is Plaintiff Marvin L. Charles, Sr.’s Complaint
filed under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an Application to Waive the
Filing Fee at Docket 3. These matters were referred to the Honorable Magistrate
Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 5, Judge Reardon issued a Report and
Recommendation to Order Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction, in which he
recommended this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and
that all pending motions be denied as moot. 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
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 A court is
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 3:22-cv-00141-SLG-KFR Document 6 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:22-cv-00141-SLG, Charles, Sr. v. State of California, et al.
Order re Final Report and Recommendation for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 2 of 2
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
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.”3
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation to Order
Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation to Order Dismissal for Lack of
Jurisdiction in its entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. The application to waive
prepayment of the filing fee is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 3rd day of November, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Id.
3 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-00141-SLG-KFR Document 6 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 2