GILBERT v. DOES 1-4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DUSTIN GRAHAM GILBERT, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:26-cv-00108-JAW
)
JOHN DOES 1-4, 	)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
On March 2, 2026, Dustin Graham Gilbert, acting pro se, filed a complaint
against John Does 1-4, claiming that unknown people stole his money and his
business and demanding that the court investigate. 	Compl. (ECF No. 1). 	In his
attached narrative, Mr. Gilbert says that he had “invented an incredible amount of
things, stuff,” including a device that allows cellphones not to have to be recharged
forever. 	Id., Attach. 1, Narrative at 1. 	Mr. Gilbert claims that he trademarked his
inventions in the early 1990s, but unknown persons stole his inventions. Id. at 1-2.
He says he suffered “the illegal seizure of property” and “civil rights violations.”
Compl. at 4.
On March 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision in
which 	he 	recommended 	that 	the 	Court 	dismiss 	Mr. 	Gilbert’s 	complaint.
Recommended Decision After Review of Pl.’s Compl. (ECF No. 6). 	The Magistrate
Judge 	recommended 	dismissal 	after 	he 	reviewed 	the 	applicable 	law 	and 	the
allegations in the complaint and concluded that Mr. Gilbert had not “alleged an
actionable claim.” Id. at 3.
Case 2:26-cv-00108-JAW Document 11 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On March 12, 2026, Mr. Gilbert objected to the recommended decision and
demanded the Magistrate Judge’s recusal. Obj. to Recommended Decision (ECF No.
9); Mot. for Recusal (ECF No. 10) (Pl.’s Obj.; Pl.’s Recusal Mot.). Mr. Gilbert reiterates
his view that the allegations in his complaint require this Court to commence an
investigation:
This U.S. Court of Portland is no different than any other U.S. Court
and its obligations to the People—to investigate, through its channels;
departments; FBI?; the corr[sic] of any complaint; claim in which one;
the 	individual 	cannot 	be 	arrested 	for 	perjury; 	truthful 	statement
because it is fact.
Id. at 4-5.
Unfortunately, 	Mr. 	Gilbert’s 	demand 	betrays 	a 	fundamental
misunderstanding of the role of the federal courts. 	The federal courts are not
investigative agencies, do not have departments, and specifically do not direct the
Federal Bureau of Investigations, which is a part of the executive branch, on how to
perform its daily operations. SEC v. Howatt, 525 F.2d 226, 229 (1st Cir. 1975) (“[I]t
is not the court’s role to intrude into the investigative agency’s function. 	Congress
committed securities investigations to the SEC, not the courts”); accord SEC v.
Caramadre, 717 F. Supp. 2d 217, 221 (D.R.I. 2010). 	If Mr. Gilbert believes that a
violation of federal law has occurred that warrants investigation, he should direct his
requests to the appropriate investigative agency, not to the federal court.
As Mr. Gilbert’s disgruntlement with the Magistrate Judge is based on his
misunderstanding of the role of the federal courts, he has not stated a basis for the
Magistrate Judge’s recusal. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). 	Furthermore, as the Court is
Case 2:26-cv-00108-JAW Document 11 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
affirming the recommended decision, the Magistrate Judge will have no further
involvement in this case, and therefore Mr. Gilbert’s recusal request is moot.
The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, together with the entire record. 	Having made a de novo determination of
“disputed 	portions 	of 	the 	report 	and 	recommendation,” 	the 	Court 	affirms 	the
Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge over Mr. Gilbert’s objections and
dismisses the case. 	United States v. J.C.D., 861 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2017). 	Thus,
consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and for the same reasons set
forth in the recommended decision and further explained herein, the Court AFFIRMS
Recommended Decision After Review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 6) and
DISMISSES Dustin Graham Gilbert’s Complaint (ECF No. 1). 	Furthermore, the
Court DENIES Dustin Graham Gilbert’s Motion for Recusal (ECF NO. 10) as non-
meritorious and moot.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of May, 2026
Case 2:26-cv-00108-JAW Document 11 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>