Hiratsuka v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA ALLEN HIRATSUKA, Plaintiff, v. EARL HOUSER, Case No. 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS Defendant.

ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court at Docket 1 is Petitioner Allen Hiratsuka’s Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble. Judge Scoble ordered Mr. Hiratsuka to file an amended petition or to file a notice that none would be filed.1 Mr. Hiratsuka did not file an amended petition and did not file a notice. Judge Scoble ordered the State of Alaska (“State”) to respond to Mr. Hiratsuka’s petition and the State filed a response at Docket 34. Mr. Hiratsuka filed a reply to the State’s response at Docket 37. An evidentiary hearing on the motion was held before Judge Scoble on August 25, 2021.2 At Docket 58, Judge Scoble issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be denied without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

1 Docket 11.

2 Docket 44.

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.”3 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.”4 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.”5 The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 4th day of February, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4 Id. 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. 3:21-cv-00018-SLG-MMS, Hiratsuka v. Houser