The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
VYACHESLAV STEVEN KIOROGLO, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00638-JR
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, ELLEN ROSENBLUM, as former
Attorney General for the State of Oregon, KATE
BROWN, as former Governor of the State of
Oregon, HOA NGUYEN, as Representative for
District 48, and CITY OF PORTLAND,
Defendants.
Adrienne Nelson, District Judge
United States Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case, ECF [14], on June 30, 2025. Judge Russo recommended that this Court dismiss this action with
prejudice. No party has filed objections. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
A district court judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If any party files objections to a
magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations, "the court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report." Id. No standard of review is prescribed for portions of the report for which
no objections are filed, and no review is required in the absence of objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 152-54 (1985). A district judge is not, however, precluded from sua sponte review of other portions
of the report, under a de novo standard or otherwise. Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee notes to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) recommend that unobjected to proposed findings and recommendations be
reviewed for "clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to
1983 amendment.
Because no party in this case has made objections, this Court reviews Judge Russo's
Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court
ADOPTS Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation, ECF [14]. The case is DISMISSED with
prejudice. Further, the Court finds that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in "good faith." 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) ("An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing
that it is not taken in good faith."); see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (defining good
faith as objective determination that party's issues are not frivolous). Therefore, plaintiff's in forma
pauperis status is revoked.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of August, 2025.
Ld nme J jebson
Adrienne Nelson
United States District Judge