Matthew Alexander O’Neill v. Derby Police Department, ET AL.

In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas _____________ Case No. 25-cv-01193-TC-GEB _____________ MATTHEW ALEXANDER O’NEILL, Plaintiff v. DERBY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., Defendants _____________ ORDER Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer issued a Report and Recom- mendation advising that Count IV of Plaintiff Matthew O’Neill’s Com- plaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 9. In particular, Count IV asserts a claim for breach of oath of office, but there is no such legally cognizable claim. Id. at 4.

When a magistrate judge has issued a report and recommendation on a dispositive pretrial matter, a party objecting to the recommenda- tion must “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district judge must then determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The dis- trict judge may accept, reject, or modify the recom- mended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This means that objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition must be “both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court . . . .” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). To be timely, the objection must be made within 14 days after service of a copy of the recommended disposition.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections are sufficiently specific if they “fo- cus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060. Where a party fails to make a proper objection, a district court may review the rec- ommendation under any standard it deems appropriate, even for clear error. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted); Gilbert v. United States Olympic Comm., 423 F. Supp. 3d 1112, 1125 (D. Colo. 2019).

O’Neill has not filed a timely objection. After reviewing Judge Bir- zer’s Report and Recommendation, there appears no clear error. Ac- cordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 9, is adopted in full.

Count IV of O’Neill’s Complaint is DISMISSED.

It is so ordered.

Date: April 15, 2026 s/ Toby Crouse Toby Crouse United States District Judge