IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON VYACHESLAV STEVEN KIOROGLO, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00638-JR Plaintiff, v. ORDER STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ELLEN ROSENBLUM, as former Attorney General for the State of Oregon, KATE BROWN, as former Governor of the State of Oregon, HOA NGUYEN, as Representative for District 48, and CITY OF PORTLAND, Defendants. Adrienne Nelson, District Judge United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in this case, ECF [14], on June 30, 2025. Judge Russo recommended that this Court dismiss this action with prejudice. No party has filed objections. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). A district court judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If any party files objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations, "the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report." Id. No standard of review is prescribed for portions of the report for which no objections are filed, and no review is required in the absence of objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152-54 (1985). A district judge is not, however, precluded from sua sponte review of other portions of the report, under a de novo standard or otherwise. Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) recommend that unobjected to proposed findings and recommendations be reviewed for "clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment. Because no party in this case has made objections, this Court reviews Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ADOPTS Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation, ECF [14]. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, the Court finds that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in "good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) ("An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith."); see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (defining good faith as objective determination that party's issues are not frivolous). Therefore, plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is revoked. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 29th day of August, 2025. Ld nme J jebson Adrienne Nelson United States District Judge