Wright v. WARHORSE, O.N. 526288 ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA CHARLES B. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:22-cv-00172-JMK-MMS vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND WARHORSE O.N. 526288, and her RECOMMENDATION engine, machinery, tackle, gear, appurtenances, apparel, furniture, and equipment, in rem, Defendant. On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this case with a Verified Complaint In Rem for Maritime Personal Injury Damages.1 Pursuant to the Local Magistrate Rules, this matter was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Scoble.2 Beginning in April 2023, Judge Scoble requested Plaintiff submit regular status reports.3 The last status report received by Judge Scoble was July 13, 2023.4 Plaintiff missed the deadline for an updated status report on September 22, 2023.5 Judge Scoble sua sponte extended time and 1 Docket 1. 2 Docket 4. 3 Docket 15. 4 Docket 16. 5 Docket 19. requested an updated status report by November 20, 2023.6 Once again, Plaintiff failed to submit anything to the court. On November 21, 2023, Judge Scoble issued a final directive to file an updated status report by January 22, 2024, warning that failure to do so may result in dismissal.7 Judge Scoble’s order was returned to the Court as undeliverable.8 At Docket 22, Judge Scoble issued his Report and Recommendation, which recommends the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. No objections have been 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.”9 As to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”10 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the analyses. The Court concurs the Henderson factors support dismissal of this action, which is proper pursuant to Local Civil Rule 41.1. Accordingly, the Court adopts the 6 Docket 19. 7 Docket 20. 8 Docket 21. 9 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 10 United Stat es 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.”). Report and Recommendations at Docket 22. The Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a final judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Joshua M. Kindred JOSHUA M. KINDRED United States District Judge