Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 aka Ronald Satish Emrit, Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number c00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, United States Department of Commerce, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, American Insistute of Physics, Kennedy Space Center and National Science Foundation

• Court: District Court, D. Utah
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00723
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ORDER ADOPTING [6] REPORT AND NUMBER P60005535 aka RONALD RECOMMENDATION AND SATISH EMRIT, PRESIDENTIAL DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION PREJUDICE COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER Case No. 2:25-cv-00723-DBB-DBP c00569897 d/b/a UNITED EMRITS OF AMERICA, District Judge David Barlow

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, AMERICAN INSISTUTE OF PHYSICS, KENNEDY SPACE CENTER and NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,

Defendants.

Before the court is a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s action without prejudice for improper venue.1 The magistrate judge reasoned that dismissal is proper because Mr. Emrit “does not allege[] any facts demonstrating a connection with Utah sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.”2 Instead, Mr. Emrit “specifically claims the federal District Court for the District of

1 Report and Recommendation 5, ECF No. 6, entered Sep. 22, 2025. 2 Id. at 4. Eastern Louisiana, not the District of Utah, is the court with jurisdiction over his case.”3 The

magistrate judge advised Mr. Emrit of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days of its service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).4 Mr. Emrit did not file an objection.5 Instead, he appealed the Report and Recommendation to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.6 The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on November 3, 2025.7 Mr. Emrit filed no objection to the order, and his appeal cannot be construed as one. Not only was it untimely, but it was not specific to any factual or legal issue, only arguing generally that dismissal was erroneous because Mr. Emrit has previously won some scientific awards.8 Because Mr. Emrit filed no written objection by the specified deadline, the court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.9 Having done so, the court finds

that the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions are sound, and no clear error appears on the face of the record. The [6] Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action without prejudice.

3 Id. 4 Id. at 5; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 5 See Docket. 6 Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 7, filed Oct. 9, 2025. 7 Mandate of USCA, ECF No. 11, entered Nov. 3, 2025. 8 Notice of Appeal 2; see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[O]nly an objection that is sufficiently specific to focus the district court's attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute will . . . preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court.”). 9 Johnson v. Progressive Leasing, No. 2:22-cv-00052, 2023 WL 4044514, at *2 (D. Utah June 16, 2023) (citing Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)). “[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” Port City Props. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 518 F.3d 1186, 1190 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. 2121 E. 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)). Signed November 5, 2025. BY THE COURT

David Barlow United States District Judge