UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

JEREMY DANIEL IVANOVSKIS § § v. § CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-531-SDJ § FEDERAL BUREAU OF § INVESTIGATION § MEMORANDUM ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

. On March 10, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report, (Dkt. #29), recommending that Defendant the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #22), be granted, that Plaintiff Jeremy Daniel Ivanovskis’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #25), be denied, and that Plaintiff Jeremy Daniel Ivanovskis’ claims be dismissed with prejudice. On March 24, 2025, Plaintiff Jeremy Daniel Ivanovskis filed an objection to the Report (Dkt. #30). The Court notes Plaintiff’s objection that “[t]he Magistrate Judge improperly failed to apply Loper Bright,” (Dkt. #30 at 6), suggesting that the Magistrate Judge applied Chevron deference in this case. Plaintiff is mistaken. In Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court made clear that “[c]ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. . . .”

,

,

(2024). Loper Bright formally overturned Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

,

,

(1984), “and eliminated the ‘judicial invention’ of deference to administrative action and rulemaking,” Van Loon v. Dep’t of the Treasury,

, 562 (5th Cir. 2024).

Contrary to Plaintiff’s objection, Loper Bright is inapplicable here because the Government did not ask for, and the Magistrate Judge did not apply, Chevron deference. See (Dkt. #31 at 5); (Dkt. #29 at 33). In any event, the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning is consistent with Loper Bright because the Magistrate Judge applied the relevant law to the facts of this case and exercised independent judgment in reaching its conclusions.

Having received the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #29), Plaintiff’s objection, (Dkt. #30), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #22), is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Jeremy Daniel Ivanovskis’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #25), is DENIED. It is finally ORDERED that Plaintiff Jeremy Daniel Ivanovskis' claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.