Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00179/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00179-0/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

JONATHAN CHARLES HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS

ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a Civil Rights action filed by self-represented prisoner Jonathan 

Hughes. In his Complaint at Docket 1, Mr. Hughes named several defendants in 

the case caption and additional defendants in the body of the case. At Docket 3,

Mr. Hughes filed an Application to Waive the Filing Fee. At Docket 6, Mr. Hughes 

filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel.

The case has been referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. 

Smith. At Docket 8, Judge Smith issued a Final Report and Recommendation in 

which she recommended that the Complaint at Docket 1 be dismissed without 

prejudice, the Application to Waive the Filing Fee be Docket 3 be deferred, and the 

Motion to Appoint Counsel be denied without prejudice. 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 

Case 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS Document 10 Filed 12/27/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS, Hughes v. AT&T, et al.

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 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 Complaint at Docket 1 is 

DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to 

Appoint Counsel at Docket 6 is DENIED without prejudice. The Application to 

Waive the Filing Fee at Docket 3 is DEFERRED. The Court notes that Mr. Hughes 

recently filed an Amended Complaint (Docket 9) that will be screened in due 

course.

DATED this 27th day of December, 2019 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 3:19-cv-00179-SLG-DMS Document 10 Filed 12/27/19 Page 2 of 2