Chain v. GBW LLC

Opinion

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

Case No. 25-cv-01111-TC-BGS _____________

JONI CHAIN,

Plaintiff

v.

GBW, LLC ET AL.,

Defendants _____________

ORDER

Joni Chain sued GBW, LLC, and an individual identified only as Pricsilla, alleging employment discrimination. Doc. 1. Because Chain submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 3, Magistrate Judge Brooks G. Severson screened Chain’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Judge Severson then issued a Report and Recom- mendation advising that Chain’s Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. 6. 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 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 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). Chain has not filed a timely objection. After reviewing Judge Sev- erson’s Report and Recommendation, there appears no clear error. Ac- cordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 6, is adopted in full and Chain’s claims are DISMISSED. It is so ordered.

Date: August 12, 2025 s/ Toby Crouse Toby Crouse United States District Judge