Kvasnikoff v. Seiferrt

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
KENNETH WAYNE KVASNIKOFF,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE SEIFERRT,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00253-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 1 is Plaintiff’s Prisoner’s Complaint under the
Civil Rights Act, 42, U.S.C. § 1983. At Docket 2 the Court issued an Order Re:
Deficient Filing, which provided instructions on how to file an application to waive
prepayment of the filing fee or to pay the filing fee, in order to properly commence
a civil action. Plaintiff responded by filing Prisoner’s Application to Waive
Prepayment of the Filing Fee at Docket 3. This matter was referred to the
Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon for screening. At Docket 5, Judge
Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that
the case be dismissed with prejudice and that all pending motions should 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
Case 3:21-cv-00253-SLG-KFR Document 6 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:21-cv-00253-SLG-KFR, Kvasnikoff v. Seiferrt
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 magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss the case with
prejudice and deny all pending motions as moot. 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 this case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this dismissal shall be a strike as provided by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 9th day of March, 2022, 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 3:21-cv-00253-SLG-KFR Document 6 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 2