Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00179/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00179-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

JOHNATHAN CHARLES HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-179-SLG-DMS

ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court at Docket 9 is Defendant’s First Amended Complaint. The 

document was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith for 

screening. At Docket 11, Judge Smith issued a Final Report and 

Recommendation, in which she recommended that the First Amended Complaint 

be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and 

without leave to amend. Judge Smith further recommended that all pending 

motions be denied as moot. 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 

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 

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS Document 12 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:19-cv-179-SLG-DMS, Hughes v. AT&T, et al.

Order re Final Report and Recommendation

Page 2 of 2

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 First 

Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 

and without leave to amend. 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 First Amended 

Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted and without leave to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending 

motions are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final 

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2020 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 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS Document 12 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 2