Chow v. United States

Full title: PETER S. CHOW, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, District of Alaska

Date published: Oct 2, 2023

3:22-cv-00258-SLG-KFR (D. Alaska Oct. 2, 2023)

Opinion

3:22-cv-00258-SLG-KFR

10-02-2023

PETER S. CHOW, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

SHARON L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SHARON L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

At Docket 1 is Plaintiff Chow's Prisoner's Complaint. The matter was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 8, Judge Reardon issued a Screening Order in which he dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In response, Plaintiff Chow filed an Amended Complaint at Docket 9 and a Motion for Relief from Void Orders and Judgments at Docket 10. At Docket 11, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation to Dismiss, in which he recommended that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that the Motion for Relief from Void Orders and Judgments be denied as moot. Plaintiff Chow filed objections to the Report and Recommendation at Docket 15 and also filed a Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis at Docket 12.

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.”¹A 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.”²However, § 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

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2 Id.

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

The magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice. On de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and Plaintiff's objections, the Court overall agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis and adopts it nearly in its entirety. The Report and Recommendation is not void, contrary to Mr. Chow's assertion.⁴ And the Amended Complaint does not meet Rule 8 pleading standards; moreover, the court actions of which Mr. Chow complains took place approximately 30 years ago and even if proven true, would not constitute a fraud on the involved courts.⁵ The Court does not adopt that portion of the report that alluded to a judgment of conviction, as it appears that Mr. Chow's 1993 criminal case was dismissed.⁶Accordingly, except as otherwise specified herein, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. All pending motions in this matter are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.

4 Docket 15 at 1.

5 See Docket 11 at 11 and cases cited therein.

6 See Docket 11 at 15; Docket 15 at 4.