Cumpton v. Wonnell et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHARA DIANNE CUMPTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT J. WONNELL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-2619-DDC-TJJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 14). Magistrate Judge James recommends that the court dismiss this
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and deny plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 9). Doc. 14 at 10. Plaintiff Shara Dianne
Cumpton1 received notice of her right to file an objection to Judge James’s Report and
Recommendation within 14 days of its service under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72. Id. at 1. The Report and Recommendation also explained that plaintiff must file any
objections within the 14-day period to secure appellate review. Id.
The Clerk sent a copy of the Report and Recommendation to plaintiff by regular mail,
using the address plaintiff had provided to the court. Id. Service of the Report and
Recommendation was accomplished by “mailing it to [plaintiff’s] last known address—in which
event service [was] completed upon mailing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C); ReVoal v. Brownback,
1 	Because plaintiff appears pro se, the court construes her 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 her advocate. Id.
Case 2:25-cv-02619-DDC-TJJ Document 16 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 5

2
No. 14-4076, 2014 WL 5321093, at *1 (D. Kan. Oct. 16, 2014). “Mailing” occurred on
November 14, 2025, when the Clerk mailed the Report and Recommendation to plaintiff. See
Doc. 14. Thus, the time for plaintiff to file an objection expired on November 28, 2025.
That deadline passed, and plaintiff has not filed any objection. Nor has plaintiff sought to
extend the time to object. And 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).2
Having reviewed plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge James’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 14), the court adopts Magistrate Judge James’s recommendation and
dismisses plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1). The court also denies plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 9). And the court directs the Clerk of the
Court to close this case.
2 	Plaintiff filed a motion objecting to dismissal of her case under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Doc. 10 at 2–3.
This filing isn’t an objection to the Report and Recommendation because plaintiff filed it before
Magistrate Judge James filed the Report and Recommendation. And even if the court treated plaintiff’s
filing as an objection, it doesn’t lodge any specific objection to Magistrate Judge James’s legal reasoning
and ruling that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Younger or Rooker-Feldman abstention.
Plaintiff thus has failed to preserve any issue for the court’s de novo review. See United States v. One
Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[W]e hold that 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.”); see also Adargo v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,
26 F. App’x 795, 797 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Objections to the magistrate’s report must be specific enough to
focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues in dispute.”).
Case 2:25-cv-02619-DDC-TJJ Document 16 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 5

3
As a final housekeeping matter, the court addresses two outstanding motions and an
objection. The court denies plaintiff’s “Motion in Equity for Leave to Deposit in the Court
Registry” (Doc. 6). Because the court has dismissed the Complaint, this motion is now moot and
the court denies it on this basis. Relatedly, the court directs the Clerk to unseal Doc. 6. Plaintiff
didn’t comply with our court’s sealing rule, D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2. Nor has she carried her burden
to justify sealing this document from public view. See Luo v. Wang, 71 F.4th 1289, 1304 (10th
Cir. 2023) (“A party seeking to file court records under seal must overcome a presumption, long
supported by courts, that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial records.”
(quotation cleaned up)).
The court also denies plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Requests” (Doc.
10). This motion asked for leave to file untimely objections to a previous sealing order
Magistrate Judge James issued. Id. at 3. But plaintiff timely objected to that sealing order. Doc.
12 (filed on November 12, 2025, and objecting to Order filed on October 31, 2025). The court
thus denies plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File out of Time Requests (Doc. 10) as moot.
Finally, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge James’s Order
(Doc. 8), which denied plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case (Doc. 5). Doc. 12. Because a sealing
order isn’t dispositive, the court applies a “‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’” standard of
review. First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 995 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Ocelot
Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1461–62 (10th Cir. 1988)); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
The crux of plaintiff’s motion is difficult to discern. As the court understands it, plaintiff
believes that the court should seal confidential materials, including her “private trust
instruments[.]” Doc. 12 at 3. Candidly, the court has no idea what plaintiff means. Plaintiff
Case 2:25-cv-02619-DDC-TJJ Document 16 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 5

4
attached a series of documents to her Complaint, including a document purporting to bear
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s signature and another purporting to show the signature of
Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab’s signature. Doc. 1-1 at 1–3; Doc. 1-2 at 1. Plaintiff
also attached two copies of her birth certificate. Doc. 1-2 at 3–4. But plaintiff hasn’t explained
why any of these documents merits sealing. See generally Doc. 12. Her demands for sealing are
conclusory, which furnishes an additional basis for rejecting them. What’s more, plaintiff hasn’t
identified why Magistrate Judge James’s legal reasoning was clearly erroneous. Magistrate
Judge James correctly explained that plaintiff has failed to carry her heavy burden to justify
sealing this entire case—or any part of it. Doc. 8 at 2–3. The court thus overrules plaintiff’s
objections to Magistrate Judge James’s Order (Doc. 8).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. The court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Report and Recommendation issued by
United States Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on November 14, 2025 (Doc. 14) is
ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 9) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion in Equity for Leave to Deposit
in the Court Registry (Doc. 6) and Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Requests (Doc. 10) are
denied as moot. The court directs the Clerk to unseal Doc. 6.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge James’s
Order (Doc. 8) are overruled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 2:25-cv-02619-DDC-TJJ Document 16 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Dated this 8th day of January, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02619-DDC-TJJ Document 16 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 5