IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

BEN J. LATHAM, Petitioner, v. ALONDO A. HERNANDEZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-00149-SLG-MMS

Respondent.

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court at Docket 1 is Petitioner Ben J. Latham’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

(“petition”). Mr. Latham also filed a Motion to Waive Printing Fees, a Motion for a Bail Hearing, and a Motion for an Errata to Complaint.1 The petition and pending motions were referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble. At Docket 10, Judge Scoble

issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice and that all pending motions 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

1 Dockets, 3, 6, and 7. part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”2 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.”3

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.”4 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

and deny as moot the Motion to

Waive Printing Fees, the Motion for a Bail Hearing, and the Motion for an Errata to Complaint. 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 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under

is DISMISSED without prejudice and the Motion to Waive Printing Fees at

Docket 3, the Motion for a Bail Hearing at Docket 6, and the Motion for an Errata to Complaint at Docket 7 are each DENIED as MOOT. 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

2

(b)(1). 3

4 Thomas v. Arn,

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

(9th Cir. 2003). Case No. 3:25-cv-00149-SLG, Latham v. Hernandez been resolved in a different manner.5 Petitioner may request a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

(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-00149-SLG, Latham v. Hernandez