Hawes v. Angol

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA ROBERT HAWES, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT ANGOL, Case No. 3:24-cv-00124-SLG-KFR Respondent.

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court at Docket 10 is Petitioner Robert Hawes’ Amended and Supplemental Grounds for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“amended petition”).

Defendant responded in opposition to the amended petition at Docket 13 to which Petitioner Hawes replied at Docket 15. The amended petition was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 18, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the amended petition be dismissed without prejudice and that a certificate of appealability should not issue. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

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

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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 the Court dismiss the Amended and Supplemental Grounds for Relief Under 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 Amended and Supplemental Grounds for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue because reasonable jurists could not debate whether this petition should have been resolved in a different manner.4 Petitioner may request a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DATED this 24th day of July, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Id. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

4 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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: 24-cv-00124-SLG-KFR, Hawes v. Angol