Thompson v. Allard

• Decision Date: 06 September 2022
• Docket Number: 3:22-cv-00075-SLG-KFR
• Parties: CARL K. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. MARJORIE K. ALLARD, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Alaska

CARL K. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
v.
MARJORIE K. ALLARD, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:22-cv-00075-SLG-KFR

United States District Court, D. Alaska

September 6, 2022

ORDER RE SCREENING ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SHARON L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court at Docket 1 is Plaintiff Carl K. Thompson's Prisoner's Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and at Docket 3 is Mr. Thompson's Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee. These matters were referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 5, Judge Reardon issued a Screening Order and Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended 1) this action be dismissed with prejudice, because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for the futility of amendment; 2) all pending motions be denied as moot; and 3) a dismissal under these circumstances should be a strike as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, et al., 590 U.S., 140 S.Ct. 172 (2020).^[1] Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation at Docket 6.

1

These matters are 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.”^[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, Section 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]

Plaintiff makes four objections to the Report and Recommendation. First, he objects to the magistrate judge's finding that the named defendants, three state court appellate judges, have judicial immunity.^[5] Second, he objects to the magistrate judge's finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Plaintiff's complaint.^[6] Third, he objects to the magistrate judge's recommendation that the dismissal be with prejudice.^[7] Fourth, he objects to the magistrate judge's finding that granting leave to amend would be futile.^[8]

2

The Court has considered the objections on de novo review and finds each to be without merit. As to the first objection, on de novo review the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the state court judges are accorded...