Allen v. State of Alaska

Filing 54

ORDER: The Court has reviewed the record de novo and concurs with the Final Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Motion to Dismiss at Docket 39 is GRANTED and Mr. Allens First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) at Docket 28 is DENIED and DISMISSED. (See Order for details). Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 03/27/2019. (CME, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ALFRED BECK ALLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 3:16-cv-00234-SLG

STATE OF ALASKA,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before the Court at Docket 28 is Petitioner Alfred Allen’s First Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D). Respondent
State of Alaska moved to dismiss the First Amended Petition at Docket 39. Mr.
Allen opposed at Docket 40. The State replied at Docket 44.
The First Amended Petition was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge
Matthew M. Scoble. At Docket 46, Judge Scoble issued his Initial Report and
Recommendation, in which he recommended that Mr. Allen’s First Amended
Petition be denied. At Docket 52, Mr. Allen filed objections to the Initial Report and
Recommendation.

At Docket 53, Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and

Recommendation, in which he recommended that Mr. Allen’s First Amended
Petition be denied.
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 made.” 2
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.” 3
The Court has reviewed the record de novo and concurs with the Final
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

See Coleman v.

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). In light of the foregoing, the State of
Alaska’s motion to dismiss at Docket 39 is GRANTED and Mr. Allen’s First
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) at
Docket 28 is DENIED and DISMISSED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment consistent with this
order.
DATED this 27th day of March, 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 No. 3:16-cv-00234-SLG, Allen v. State of Alaska
Order
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:16-cv-00234-SLG, Allen v. State of Alaska
Order
Page 3 of 3