govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-6_26-cv-01104-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
 
 
LARRY DARNELL CRAYTON, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v ) Case No.: 26-1104-EFM 
 ) 
HOLLY L. TEETER, and ) 
GWYNNE E. BIRZER, ) 
 ) 
 Defendants. ) 
____________________________________) 
 
ORDER 
 
 Plaintiff Larry Darnell Crayton, Trustee, Cr ayton Administrative Trust, proceeding pro se, 
filed this “Complaint for Damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents” against United 
States District Judge Holly Teeter and United States Magistrate Judge Gwynne Birzer on April 24, 
2026. The Complaint alleges that it arises from a “pattern of judicial misconduct and constitutional 
violations that occurred during litigation across four federal cases in this District.” 
 Because Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, the court screened 
the complaint as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Th at law authorizes the Court to dismiss an in 
forma pauperis case if, among other reasons, it fails to stat e a claim upon which relief may be 
granted. Magistrate Judge Brooks Severson screened the Complaint and on April 29, 2026 (Doc. 
6) issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) th at the case be dismissed. The R&R first 
determined that disagreements with rulings en tered by a court in pr ior cases cannot proceed 
through a separate action but may be challenged onl y through the appellate process. Plaintiff’s 
complaint clearly arises from his dissatisfaction with prior rulings. Moreover, to the extent 

2 
 
Plaintiff’s Complaint raised allegations which ma y be construed as not an improper collateral 
attack on prior Court rulings, the R&R determined that such claims were barred by absolute 
judicial immunity. The authority and analysis for these determinat ions are set forth in the R&R 
and need not be repeated here. 
 The United States Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the District Judge dismiss 
the claims. Plaintiff was given fourteen days from the date of service of the R&R (because 
Plaintiff’s entry of appearance included his email, he was served on the date of issuance) in which 
to file with the District Judge any written objections to the re commendations. The R&R clearly 
noted that “failure to file timely and specific objections will bar appella te review of . . . the 
recommended disposition.” 
 Fourteen days from April 29, 2026 was May 13, 2026. On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a 
Motion for Leave to File Objections to the R&R not to exceed twenty-five pages (the local rules 
would have permitted a filing of no more than fifteen pages). Th e Court granted that request on 
the same date but noted that: “No request for an extended time to respond has been made, and none 
is granted. Objections are still due 14-days after being served with the [R&R].” That Order is the 
last filing made in this case. No timely Objections were filed by May 13, and none have been filed 
since. 
 The Court has reviewed the authori ties and analysis set forth in the R&R, and finds them 
sound and based on long-established law. No r eason to reject the R&R and deny dismissal has 
been shown, and none is apparent. The Court ther efore adopts the R&R in full as its own Order 
and directs that the case should be dismissed. 
 
 

3 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R, Doc. 6. is adopted, and the case is ordered 
dismissed. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 Dated this 21st day of May, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 E R I C F . M E L G R E N 
 SENIOR DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Passage view · GavelSight