Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00109/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00109-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ZEBULON WHISLER,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT HERNANDEZ, 

Respondent.

Case No. 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court at Docket 1 is Petitioner Zebulon Whisler’s Petition for a 

Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent Superintendent 

Hernandez filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition at Docket 13. The motion was 

referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 14, Judge 

Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that 

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and Mr. Whisler’s § 2241 petition be 

dismissed 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 

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 

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 01/08/25 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR, Whisler v. Hernandez

Order on Report and Recommendation 

Page 2 of 2

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 Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Respondent’s 

Motion to Dismiss because Mr. Whisler is no longer in state pretrial custody, as he 

has been convicted and sentenced on his state charge.4 The Magistrate Judge 

therefore also recommended that Mr. Whisler’s petition be dismissed 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 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket 13 is GRANTED,

and Mr. Whisler’s § 2241 petition at Docket 1 is DISMISSED as moot. 

The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly. A certificate of 

appealability shall not be issued by this Court, because reasonable jurists could 

not debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner.

See U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

DATED this 8th day of January 2025, 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).

4 Docket 14 at 2-3.

Case 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 01/08/25 Page 2 of 2