IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

THERESA MARGARET MACDONALD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-00291-SLG DEBRA HAALAND Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants.

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court at Docket 8 is what the Court liberally construes as Plaintiff MacDonald’s Amended Complaint. The matter was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 9, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that this action be dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to

(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

1

(b)(1). 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 this action be dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice and neither party has filed objections to that Report and Recommendation. 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 as follows: 1. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend and with prejudice. 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.

DATED this 1st day of August 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Id. 3 Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). Case No. 3:23-cv-00191-SLG-KFR, MacDonald v. Haaland, et al.