Rahman v. Ferguson

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MALIK RAHMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 25-2745-JWB
JULI FERGUSON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell’s Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) that recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff
had 14 days from service of the magistrate judge’s R&R to lodge any objections to the
recommendation 	of 	dismissal. 	The 	tracking 	number 	of 	the 	certified 	mailing 	for 	the
recommendation indicates that Plaintiff picked up the mailing at a post office on December 23,
2025. Plaintiff filed a “Statement of Claim” on January 5, 2025. (Doc. 7.) The court will construe
this as Plaintiff’s objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R. Despite Plaintiff’s objections, the court
ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendation and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without
prejudice.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s ruling on a dispositive matter, the district judge “must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 	A failure to properly object, however, leaves a party with no
entitlement to appellate review, and allows the district court to review the R&R under any standard
it deems appropriate. See Williams v. United States, No. 19-2476-JAR-JPO, 2019 WL 6167514,
at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 20, 2019) (citing United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057,
Case 2:25-cv-02745-JWB-ADM Document 8 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1060 (10th Cir. 1996)) (“The Tenth Circuit requires that objections to a magistrate judge's
recommended disposition ‘be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by
the district court...’”). “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a
magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165,
1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte if “the plaintiff fails to
prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” See also Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199,
1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (finding that this Rule allows “courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a
plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court’s orders”).
Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but a district court cannot assume the role of an
advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). And pro se plaintiffs must
follow the same rules of procedure that govern represented litigants. 	Garrett v. Selby Connor
Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
After review of the complaint, the R&R, and Plaintiff’s objection, the court agrees with the
magistrate judge that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and therefore must dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint. 	Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the
federal courts to certain “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure require Plaintiff to identify what grounds he is asserting that provide jurisdiction
to this court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Not only does Plaintiff’s complaint not do that, but he has also
pled facts that affirmatively indicate this court does not have jurisdiction. 	Plaintiff does not
indicate he is invoking federal question jurisdiction in his complaint. 	As the magistrate judge
explained, Plaintiff indicates he is a citizen of Kansas. (Doc. 5 at 3.) Plaintiff goes on to allege
that Defendant, named Juli Ferguson (but with an address reflecting Mainstreet Credit Union), is
Case 2:25-cv-02745-JWB-ADM Document 8 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
“a corporation incorporated under the law of the state of Kansas.” 	(Id.) 	Accordingly, the two
parties in the lawsuit are non-diverse and absent a statute providing federal question jurisdiction
over this action, the court must dismiss it as it is the proper province of the state courts.
Plaintiff’s objections do not change this court’s conclusion. 	Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. §
1344, the criminal bank fraud statute, as providing jurisdiction. That statute is a criminal statute
whose enforcement is only permitted by the executive branch of the federal government. Private
parties may not use it as grounds for a lawsuit and there is nothing in the statute providing Plaintiff
with a cause of action. 	The remainder of Plaintiff’s short objection has nothing to do with
jurisdiction. If Plaintiff believes that criminal conduct has occurred, the appropriate response is to
report it to the proper authorities.
For the foregoing reasons, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 7th day of January, 2026.
s/ John W. Broomes
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02745-JWB-ADM Document 8 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3