govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-2_26-cv-02024-1

1 
 
In the United States District Court 
for the District of Kansas 
_____________ 
 

_____________ 
 
CHRISTOPHER FOUNTAIN 
 
Plaintiff 
 
v. 
 
JEFF EASTER, 
 
Defendant 
_____________ 
 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 
 
Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer issued a Report and Recom-
mendation (R&R) that Plaintiff Christopher Fountain ’s motion for 
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 3, be denied and that this 
action be dismissed. Doc. 7 at 1 –3. The R&R found that Fountain 
failed to file a financial affidavit despite the Judge Birzer’s April 29, 
2026 order directing him to do so within ten days, leaving Judge Birzer 
unable to conduct the financial comparison required to evaluate his 
motion. Id. at 2. The R&R also determined that Fountain’s failure to 
comply with the court order warranted dismissal of his action for fail-
ure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 3. The R&R in-
formed Fountain that he could object to its findings within fourteen 
days of receipt and that failure to do so would waive appellate review 
of both factual and legal questions. Id. at 1. 
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on 
a dispositive pretrial matter, a party objecting to the recommendation 
must “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed find-
ings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district judge 
must then 
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 
disposition that has been properly objected to. The dis-
trict judge may accept, reject, or modify the 

2 
 
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instruc-
tions. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This means that 
objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition must be 
“both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by 
the district court . . . .” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. , 73 F.3d 
1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). To be timely, the objection must be made 
within 14 days after service of a copy of the recommended disposition. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections are sufficiently specific if they “fo-
cus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are 
truly in dispute.” One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060. Where a party 
fails to make a proper objection, a district court may review the rec-
ommendation under any standard it deems appropriate, even for clear 
error. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations 
omitted); Gilbert v. United States Olympic Comm. , 423 F. Supp. 3d 1112, 
1125 (D. Colo. 2019). 
Fourteen days have passed since the Report and Recommendation 
was filed and Fountain filed no response to it. And after reviewing the 
pleadings submitted , there appears to be no error in Judge Birzer’s 
conclusions or recommendations. As a result, the R&R is adopted in 
its entirety. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT 
the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 7, is adopted in its entirety . 
West’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 3, is DE-
NIED, and this action is DISMISSED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Date: June 1, 2026 _s/ Toby Crouse 
 Toby Crouse 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight