Dustin Graham Gilbert v. John Does 1-4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DUSTIN GRAHAM GILBERT, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:26-cv-00108-JAW ) JOHN DOES 1-4, ) Defendants. ) ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On March 2, 2026, Dustin Graham Gilbert, acting pro se, filed a complaint against John Does 1-4, claiming that unknown people stole his money and his business and demanding that the court investigate. Compl. (ECF No. 1). In his attached narrative, Mr. Gilbert says that he had “invented an incredible amount of things, stuff,” including a device that allows cellphones not to have to be recharged forever. Id., Attach. 1, Narrative at 1. Mr. Gilbert claims that he trademarked his inventions in the early 1990s, but unknown persons stole his inventions. Id. at 1-2.

He says he suffered “the illegal seizure of property” and “civil rights violations.”

Compl. at 4.

On March 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Gilbert’s complaint.

Recommended Decision After Review of Pl.’s Compl. (ECF No. 6). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal after he reviewed the applicable law and the allegations in the complaint and concluded that Mr. Gilbert had not “alleged an actionable claim.” Id. at 3.

On March 12, 2026, Mr. Gilbert objected to the recommended decision and demanded the Magistrate Judge’s recusal. Obj. to Recommended Decision (ECF No. 9); Mot. for Recusal (ECF No. 10) (Pl.’s Obj.; Pl.’s Recusal Mot.). Mr. Gilbert reiterates his view that the allegations in his complaint require this Court to commence an investigation: This U.S. Court of Portland is no different than any other U.S. Court and its obligations to the People—to investigate, through its channels; departments; FBI?; the corr[sic] of any complaint; claim in which one; the individual cannot be arrested for perjury; truthful statement because it is fact.

Id. at 4-5.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gilbert’s demand betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the federal courts. The federal courts are not investigative agencies, do not have departments, and specifically do not direct the Federal Bureau of Investigations, which is a part of the executive branch, on how to perform its daily operations. SEC v. Howatt, 525 F.2d 226, 229 (1st Cir. 1975) (“[I]t is not the court’s role to intrude into the investigative agency’s function. Congress committed securities investigations to the SEC, not the courts”); accord SEC v. Caramadre, 717 F. Supp. 2d 217, 221 (D.R.I. 2010). If Mr. Gilbert believes that a violation of federal law has occurred that warrants investigation, he should direct his requests to the appropriate investigative agency, not to the federal court.

As Mr. Gilbert’s disgruntlement with the Magistrate Judge is based on his misunderstanding of the role of the federal courts, he has not stated a basis for the Magistrate Judge’s recusal. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Furthermore, as the Court is affirming the recommended decision, the Magistrate Judge will have no further involvement in this case, and therefore Mr. Gilbert’s recusal request is moot.

The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record. Having made a de novo determination of “disputed portions of the report and recommendation,” the Court affirms the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge over Mr. Gilbert’s objections and dismisses the case. United States v. J.C.D., 861 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2017). Thus, consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and for the same reasons set forth in the recommended decision and further explained herein, the Court AFFIRMS Recommended Decision After Review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 6) and DISMISSES Dustin Graham Gilbert’s Complaint (ECF No. 1). Furthermore, the Court DENIES Dustin Graham Gilbert’s Motion for Recusal (ECF NO. 10) as non- meritorious and moot.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 1st day of May, 2026