IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

BRETT ALAN JAMES TALMADGE, Petitioner, v. ANGOL, Case No. 3:25-cv-00010-SLG-MMS Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Before the Court is Mr. Talmadge’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

at Docket 1 and Motion for Expedited Consideration at Docket

2. The petition and motion were referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble. At Docket 4, Judge Scoble issued a Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice and the Motion for Expedited Consideration be denied as moot. 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 or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

1

(b)(1). 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 dismiss with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and deny as moot the Motion for Expedited Consideration. 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 for Writ of

Habeas Corpus Under

is DISMISSED with prejudice and the Motion for Expedited Consideration is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment in this matter. 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. DATED this 7th day of April, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

3 Thomas v. Arn,

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

(9th Cir. 2003). 4

(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel,

(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 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. 3:25-cv-00010-SLG-MMS, Talmadge v. Angol