Pierce v. Kobach

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MOREHEI PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 23-4028-JWB KRIS KOBACH, et al., Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the court on the May 9, 2023, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) by United States Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell, which recommended that Plaintiff Morehei Pierce’s complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Plaintiff was advised that specific written objections were due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 8 at 4.) Plaintiff has filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 11.) But Plaintiff makes no specific objections to any portion of the Report and Recommendation. (See id. at 1) (Report and Recommendation “basically state[s] that the State of Kansas is not liable for wrongfully holding Plaintiff incarcerated for over 30 years” (capitalization corrected)). Plaintiff’s failure to properly object to any portion of the Recommendation leaves him with no entitlement to appellate review. Williams v. United States, No. 19-2476-JAR-JPO, 2019 WL 6167514, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov.

20, 2019) (“The Tenth Circuit requires that objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition ‘be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court . . .”) (quoting United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)).

“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t 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.”)).

The court agrees with the reasoning of Judge Mitchell’s analysis and recommendations and finds that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note. Thus, the court ADOPTS the Report of the magistrate judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 9) is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2023.

__s/ John W. Broomes____________ JOHN W. BROOMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE