Ramirez v. Winter Blues Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MARCO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
WINTER BLUES, INC, in personam,
THE F/V WINTER BLUES,
OFFICIAL NO. 612146, HER
ENGINES, MACHINERY,
APPURTENANCES AND CARGO,
in rem,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS
ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 45 is Plaintiff’s Motion for Maintenance While in
Jail. Defendant responded in opposition to the motion at Docket 50. Plaintiff
replied to the opposition at Docket 52. The motion was referred to the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith. At Docket 55, Judge Smith issued her Report
and Recommendation, in which she recommended that the motion be denied. 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 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS Document 56 Filed 06/11/21 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS, Ramirez v. Winter Blues, Inc.
Order re Report and Recommendation
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
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 deny Plaintiff’s Motion
for Maintenance While in Jail. The Court has reviewed the Report and
Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Maintenance While in Jail is DENIED.
DATED this 11th day of June, 2021 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 3:20-cv-00002-SLG-DMS Document 56 Filed 06/11/21 Page 2 of 2