Daniel O. Kirkland v. Central Intelligence Agency

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DANIEL O. KIRKLAND, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-cv-000464-FB § CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, filed in the above-captioned cause on October 14, 2025. (Docket no. 11). The Court’s official CM/ECF docket sheet reflects that the clerk’s office sent a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, via certified mail through the United States Postal Service on October 14, 2025, and that Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the Report and Recommendation on October 20, 2025. (Docket nos. 12 & 13). To date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). The motion urges Plaintiff: (1) lacks standing because there is no live “case or controversy” presented; (2) has not identified any waiver of sovereign immunity; and (3) has failed to plead specific facts showing any entitlement to relief. This Court agrees with Defendant’s standing argument. The Court therefore does not reach Defendant’s second and third arguments. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 11) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (docket no. 9) is GRANTED in PART and DISMISSED as MOOT in part. The motion is GRANTED such that the above styled and numbered cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remainder of the motion is DISMISSED as MOOT. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that motions pending with the Court, ifany, are Dismissed as Moot and this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 12th day of November, 2025.

Feet CF D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE