O'Neill v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MATTHEW ALEXANDER O’NEILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-1262-DDC-BGS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Brooks G. Severson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 5). Judge Severson recommends that the court dismiss this case for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction and because plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff Matthew Alexander O’Neill1 received notice of the right to object to the Report and
Recommendation within 14 days of its service under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). Id. at 6. The Report and Recommendation also explained that plaintiff, to secure
appellate review, must file any objections within the 14-day period. Id.
The Clerk of the Court sent a copy of the Report and Recommendation to plaintiff by
certified mail, using the address plaintiff provided to the court. Id. Service of the Report and
Recommendation was accomplished by “mailing it to [plaintiff’s] last known address—in which
1 	Because plaintiff appears pro se, the court construes his pleadings liberally and holds them “to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But the court can’t assume the role of his advocate. Id. Also, plaintiff’s pro se
status doesn’t excuse him from “the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim
could be based.” Id.
Case 6:25-cv-01262-DDC-BGS Document 8 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
event service [was] completed upon mailing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C); ReVoal v. Brownback,
No. 14-4076, 2014 WL 5321093, at *1 (D. Kan. Oct. 16, 2014). Mailing occurred on December
11, 2025, when the Clerk mailed the Report and Recommendation to plaintiff. Thus, the time for
plaintiff to object expired on December 29, 2025.
Plaintiff didn’t file a timely objection. Instead, he objected on January 23, 2026. Doc. 7.
He didn’t provide any reason for his late filing. So, the court now can accept, adopt, and affirm
the Report and Recommendation. And it does so. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167
(10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s
report under any standard it deems appropriate.”); see also Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 232
F.3d 760, 766–67 (10th Cir. 2000) (explaining under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) a district court must
make a de novo determination only for those portions of the report and recommendation to
which a party specifically has objected).
Having reviewed plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and Judge Severson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 5), the court determines that Judge Severson’s analysis and conclusions
are sound. Judge Severson explained that, absent waiver, sovereign immunity shields federal
agencies from suit. Doc. 5 at 4. The court thus lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
claims and dismisses this action without prejudice. Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt. v.
City of Guthrie, 654 F.3d 1058, 1069 n.9 (10th Cir. 2011) (dismissal on sovereign-immunity
grounds must be without prejudice).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. The court directs the Clerk to close this case.
Case 6:25-cv-01262-DDC-BGS Document 8 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Report and Recommendation issued by
United States Magistrate Judge Brooks G. Severson (Doc. 5) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED,
AND AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-01262-DDC-BGS Document 8 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3