Chikhladze v. United States Department of State

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION SIMON CHIKHLADZE, CV 25—21-H-DWM Plaintiff, vs. ORDER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF KINGDOM OF DENMARK, GEORGIAN AUTHORITIES, TEA TSULUKIANI, and KORDZAKHIA CRIME CELL, Defendants.

On February 28, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto entered Findings and Recommendations with respect to Plaintiff Simon Chikhladze’s civil rights complaint based on the treatment he has received as a resident of the Republic of Georgia. (See Docs. 2, 6.) Having screened Chikhladze’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Judge DeSoto found that he fails to identify a viable basis for venue in the District of Montana. (See Doc. 6.)

Despite being given the opportunity to do so, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Chikhladze has not filed objections. Failure to object waives the right to review.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). But consistent with the Court’s “full authority” to □ review the Findings and Recommendations under any standard it deems appropriate, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1958), the Court reviews for clear error. Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). Finding no clear error in Judge DeSoto’s conclusion that there is no basis for venue, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) The Findings and Recommendation, (Doc. 6), is ADOPTED IN FULL. (2) Chikhladze’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (3) Itis CERTIFIED, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B), that any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith. (4) The Clerk is directed to enter, by separate document, a judgment of dismissal.

DATED this His of March, 2025.

Ki] Donald W. Mollay, District Judge United/States District Court