Harmon v. State of Alaska

Filing 31

ORDER OF DISMISSAL adopting 30 Report and Recommendations; denying 21 Amended and Supplemental Grounds for Relief Under 28 USC § 2254. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment in this case. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 3/12/2025. (SCD, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JAMES D. HARMON,
Petitioner,
v.
SARAH ANGOL,
Superintendent, Goose Creek
Correctional Center,

Case No. 1:23-cv-00009-SLG-KFR

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before the Court at Docket 1 is Petitioner James D. Harmon’s Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and at
Docket 21 an Amended and Supplemental Grounds for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. §
2254.

The petition and amended petition were referred to the Honorable

Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 30, Judge Reardon issued his
Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the petitions be
denied. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been 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
1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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

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 deny the Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Amended and Supplemental
Grounds for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court has reviewed the Report
and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that the
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Amended and
Supplemental Grounds for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 are DENIED. The Clerk
of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment in this case.
A certificate of appealability shall not be issued by this Court because
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right. 4 Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

2

Id.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate
of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition
4

Case No. 1:23-cv-00009-SLG-KFR, Harmon v. Angol
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 3

DATED this 12th day of March, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).

Case No. 1:23-cv-00009-SLG-KFR, Harmon v. Angol
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 3