Christopher Fountain v. Jeff Easter

In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas _____________ Case No. 2:26-cv-02024-TC-GEB _____________ CHRISTOPHER FOUNTAIN Plaintiff v. JEFF EASTER, Defendant _____________ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer issued a Report and Recom- mendation (R&R) that Plaintiff Christopher Fountain’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 3, be denied and that this action be dismissed. Doc. 7 at 1–3. The R&R found that Fountain failed to file a financial affidavit despite the Judge Birzer’s April 29, 2026 order directing him to do so within ten days, leaving Judge Birzer unable to conduct the financial comparison required to evaluate his motion. Id. at 2. The R&R also determined that Fountain’s failure to comply with the court order warranted dismissal of his action for fail- ure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 3. The R&R in- formed Fountain that he could object to its findings within fourteen days of receipt and that failure to do so would waive appellate review of both factual and legal questions. Id. at 1.

When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a dispositive pretrial matter, a party objecting to the recommendation must “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed find- ings 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 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instruc- tions.

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).

Fourteen days have passed since the Report and Recommendation was filed and Fountain filed no response to it. And after reviewing the pleadings submitted, there appears to be no error in Judge Birzer’s conclusions or recommendations. As a result, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 7, is adopted in its entirety.

West’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 3, is DE- NIED, and this action is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 1, 2026 _s/ Toby Crouse Toby Crouse United States District Judge