Ashford et al v. Google, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TIMOTHY L. ASHFORD and TIMOTHY L.
ASHFORD, P.C.L.L.O.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE, INC., ALPHABET, INC.,
ROSES ROSES, GO GAMERS, JOHN
DOES 1-1000, and JANE DOES 1-1000,
Defendants.
8:25CV284
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs Timothy L. Ashford and Timothy L.
Ashford, 	P.C.L.L.O.’s 	(together 	“Ashford”) 	Statement 	of 	Objections 	to 	Magistrate
Judge’s Order (Filing No. 36). 	The magistrate judge’s Findings, Recommendation and
Order in this matter (Filing No. 33) was filed on June 25, 2025. 	A Memorandum and
Order accepting the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation was entered on
August 4, 2025 (Filing No. 34). 	Although no objections to the magistrate judge’s
Findings and Recommendations were filed in this case within the time allowed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), Ashford filed his objections on August 19,
2025, almost two months late.
In addition to the untimeliness of the objections, it appears the main issue raised
by Ashford was to the order denying his motion for a blanket recusal of all judges of the
District of Nebraska (Filing No. 32). Because the undersigned issued that ruling, not the
magistrate judge, Rule 72(b)(2) does not apply, nor does any other rule.
8:25-cv-00284-RFR-RCC Doc # 37 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
Finally, 	as 	part 	of 	the 	Memorandum 	and 	Order 	of August 4, 	2025, 	and 	in
accordance with Ashford’s own request (Filing No. 23), this case, filed by the Ashford in
state court and properly removed to this Court, was dismissed.1
For all of the foregoing reasons, Ashford’s Statement of Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Order (Filing No. 36) are denied as moot (given the dismissal). Even if not moot,
the objections are untimely and meritless.
Dated this 14th day of November 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
1 Ashford refers to this case as a duplicate case which was filed by the defendants.
The two cases which were at issue were identical. Case 8:25CV95 was filed by Ashford
in this Court. 	This case was filed by Ashford in state court and removed to this Court.
Contrary to Ashford’s assertions, defendants did not originally file either of these cases at
issue here.
8:25-cv-00284-RFR-RCC Doc # 37 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>