USA v. Jensen et al

Filing 128

Order on Motion to Dismiss

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES L. JENSEN, JR., and
ROBIN L. JENSEN,
Defendants.

3:09-cr-108 JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
[Re:

Motion at docket 100 ]

)
)
I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 100, defendants moved to dismiss the indictment. The motion was
briefed, and the magistrate judge to whom the motion had been referred filed a report
and recommendation at docket 116 in which he recommended that the motion be
denied. Defendants filed objections at docket 122 to which the United States
responded at docket 127.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate.”1 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

novo review of all conclusions of law,2 and any findings of fact to which objections have
been made.3 Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.4
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants’ objections are essentially a re-hash of the contentions made in the
motion at docket 100 and already addressed by the magistrate judge in his report.
Defendants, who are not trained in the law (and who appear to be steadfastly ignoring
the fact that the court provided them stand-by counsel to consult even though they have
exercised their right to represent themselves) have fallen prey to the scourge of many
pro se litigants, a penchant to find a case or two which contains a sentence or two
which, when taken out of context of the particular case and the relevant body of law as
a whole, appears to support a desired result. Then, relying on the fundamental concept
of stare decisis, the defendants, like so many pro se litigants, assert that the issue
before this court is controlled by the isolated sentence or two. In any event, there is
nothing in the objections not adequately addressed by Magistrate Judge Roberts’
recommendation. Having applied the standard of review articulated above, this court
concludes that the recommendations from the magistrate judge are correct in all
material respects. This court adopts his recommended findings and conclusions.
Based thereon, the motion at docket 100 is DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 10th day of June, 2010.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by
Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).
3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).

-2-