Opinion
24-2269-JWB
10-07-2024
ANDREW QUINN, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF KANSAS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CITY OF TOPEKA, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. BROOMES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court on an August 5, 2024 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's pro se complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 6.) The R&R was sent to Plaintiff by regular mail, and Plaintiff had 14 days from the date of service to file written objections to it. If he did not timely file any objections (due August 19), no court would allow appellate review of the recommended disposition. (Doc. 6 at 1.) Plaintiff has failed to timely object to Magistrate Judge James's R&R.
Plaintiff's failure to timely object to any portion of the R&R leaves him with no entitlement to appellate review. Williams v. United States, No. 19-2476-JAR-JPO, 2019 WL 6167514, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 20, 2019) (“The Tenth Circuit requires that objections to a magistrate judge's recommended disposition ‘be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court ...”) (quoting United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)). “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”)).
The court agrees with Judge James's analysis concluding that the complaint fails to state a valid claim upon which relief can be granted. The court finds no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) The court accordingly adopts the recommendation in the R&R to dismiss the complaint.
Conclusion
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 6) as the findings and conclusions of this court. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.