Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 46:1156 Administrative Procedure Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., d/b/a

Alaska General Seafoods, a Delaware

corporation; and LIBERTY PACKING, 

LLC, a Washington limited liability 

company

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PACIFIC PREDATOR, AK

Registration No. AK3565AN, its

engines, machinery, appurtenances,

etc., in rem; BRYAN HOWEY, in 

personam; DANA HOWEY, in 

personam; and ALASKA WILD

EXPORTS, LLC, in personam,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court at Docket 71 is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure 

to State a Claim (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs responded in opposition at Docket 78. 

Defendants filed a reply at Docket 81. The Motion was referred to the Honorable 

Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 100, Judge Reardon issued his “Findings 

and Recommendations on Motion to Dismiss Under 12(b)(6)” (the “Report and 

Recommendation”), in which he recommended that the Motion be denied in its entirety. 

Defendants did not file written objections. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 106 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 2
Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al. vs. Pacific Predator, et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Page 2

This 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.” 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.”1

 But as to those topics 

on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] 

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties 

themselves accept as correct.”2

Judge Reardon recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for 

Dismiss at Docket 71. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees 

with its analysis. With no objections filed by Defendants, the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation at Docket 100. The Court will issue an Order regarding the pending 

Report and Recommendation at Docket 87 under separate cover.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion at Docket 71 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.

 /s/ Joshua M. Kindred 

JOSHUA M. KINDRED

United States District Judge

1

 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

2

 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 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 106 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 2