govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-6_25-cv-01193-2

1 
 
In the United States District Court 
for the District of Kansas 
_____________ 
 
Case No. 25-cv-01193-TC-GEB 
_____________ 
 
MATTHEW ALEXANDER O’NEILL, 
 
Plaintiff 
  
v. 
 
DERBY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., 
 
Defendants 
_____________ 
 
ORDER 
 
Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer  issued a Report and Recom-
mendation advising that Count IV of Plaintiff Matthew O’Neill’s Com-
plaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted. Doc. 9. In particular, Count IV asserts a claim for breach of 
oath of office, but there is no such legally cognizable claim. Id. at 4. 
When a magistrate judge has issued a report and recommendation 
on a dispositive pretrial matter, a party objecting to the recommenda-
tion must “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed 
findings 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 recom-
mended disposition; receive further evidence; or return 
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 
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 
Case 6:25-cv-01193-TC-GEB     Document 10     Filed 04/15/26     Page 1 of 2
2 
 
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). 
O’Neill has not filed a timely objection. After reviewing Judge Bir-
zer’s Report and Recommendation, there appears no clear error. Ac-
cordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 9, is adopted in full. 
Count IV of O’Neill’s Complaint is DISMISSED. 
It is so ordered. 
 
Date: April 15, 2026     s/ Toby Crouse   
     Toby Crouse  
United States District Judge 
Case 6:25-cv-01193-TC-GEB     Document 10     Filed 04/15/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight