*1 Before the Court is the Recommendation (ECF No. 12) to Deny Defendant Mason Wollersheim's Motion to Quash (ECF No. 1) and Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 7) by United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty issued on December 1, 2023. Mr. Wollersheim did not object to the Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.

You filed a Motion to Quash and Dismiss All of the Subpoena on September 22, 2023 (ECF No. 1). You also filed a Motion for Discovery on November 1, 2023 (ECF No. 7). This Court referred your motions to Magistrate Judge Hegarty for an initial determination. On December 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommended that this Court deny both motions and dismiss your case (ECF No. 12). He first determined that you failed to show that the challenged subpoena for bank records was not for legitimate law enforcement purposes or that the issuing governmental agency did not comply with the Right to Financial Privacy Act. He then determined that your Motion for Discovery is unwarranted because you failed to meet your burden of showing that the underlying government investigation is improper.

At the end of his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised that you had 14 days after service of the Recommendation to file a written objection (id. at 6 n.1). On December 4, 2023, the Clerk's Office mailed a copy of the Recommendation to the address listed on the subpoena at issue (ECF No. 11). Four days later, that letter was returned to the Clerk's Office as undeliverable (id.). It appears that the post office attempted to forward the letter to an address in Lone Tree, Colorado, but the “forward time” had expired (id.). Nonetheless the 14-day window to object started to run at the time of mailing.[1]

It is your obligation to stay informed of the status of your case and to update the Court when you change your mailing address. The District of Colorado's Local Rules require that you update the Court no later than five days after you change your mailing address. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(c) (“Notice of change of name, mailing address, or telephone number of an unrepresented prisoner or party shall be filed not later than five days after the change.”). There is no record of you changing your mailing address from the Black Ridge View mailing address listed in CM-ECF. Moreover, you merely listed “Fort Carson, CO” as your address on your “Motion to Challenge Government's Access to Financial Records” (ECF No. 1-1 at 8).

*2 The Court notes that an objection would not have altered the Court's decision to affirm and adopt Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation to deny your motions. That is because the Court has reviewed the Recommendation and, as explained in more detail below, has determined that it is correct. Your case is therefore dismissed.

Defendant Mason Wollersheim is a Staff Sergeant in the United States Army (ECF No. 6 at 1). The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) and Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division (DACID) are investigating whether Mr. Wollersheim violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 121, Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation, UCMJ Article 124, Pay and Allowance Fraud, and 18 U.S.C. § 1343, Wire Fraud (see ECF No. 6-1, ¶ 2). According to the DACID, the investigation has revealed evidence that Mr. Wollersheim engaged in insurance fraud by filing fraudulent claims for property loss (ECF No. 6 at 2). The investigation has also revealed evidence of misconduct concerning payments from the Montgomery GI Bill intended to reimburse school costs and tuition (id.).

As part of its investigation, the DoD OIG prepared a subpoena to be served on Mr. Wollersheim's bank, the Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) (id.) The DoD OIG argues that these bank records may contain critical evidence to account for the funds related to the alleged insurance claim payments and GI Bill payments (id. at 2).

Pursuant to the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. § 3401 et seq., (RFPA), DACID Special Agent Francis Nguyen personally served Mr. Wollersheim with a copy of the subpoena DoD OIG intends to serve on NFCU's Custodian of Records (id.). Special Agent Nguyen also provided Mr. Wollersheim a “Notice to Customer” which instructed him how to challenge the subpoena (id.).

On September 22, 2023, Mr. Wollersheim filed his motion seeking to quash the subpoena and enjoin production of the records described in the subpoena (ECF No. 1). He makes seven broad arguments: (1) there is not probable cause to support the subpoena; (2) the government has not provided him with discovery regarding the investigation; (3) DACID has been accused of wrongdoing unrelated to this investigation; (4) “[t]he records sought are not relevant to the agency's inquiry”; (5) the investigation amounts to malicious prosecution; (6) the investigation “is a huge fishing expedition”; and (7) the subpoena is degrading his mental and physical health and well-being (id. at 1–9).

When—as is the case here—a party does not object to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, the Court “may review a magistrate [judge]’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). The Court is “accorded considerable discretion” when reviewing “unchallenged” recommendations. Id. Although Mr. Wollersheim did not trigger de novo review here, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (a “district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to”), the Court, nonetheless, has reviewed Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation de novo and has determined that it is correct.

The RFPA contains three separate bases for quashing a subpoena for bank records: (1) the agency's inquiry is not a legitimate law enforcement inquiry, (2) the records sought are not relevant to the agency's inquiry, and (3) the agency has not substantially complied with the RFPA (ECF No. 12 (citing 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a)(2) and Melissa C. Carnes Revocable Tr. Dated Feb. 10, 2010 v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, No. 22-mc-00203-DDC-TJJ, 2022 WL 1442845, at *3 (D. Kan. May 6, 2022)). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hegarty that Mr. Wollersheim has not satisfied any of these bases.

*3 Moreover, the Court agrees that Mr. Wollersheim's Motion for Discovery is inappropriate because he cannot cite special circumstances that raise doubts about the DoD OIG and DACID's investigation (see ECF No. 12 (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1388 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). Rather, the Court finds that the subpoena is entirely appropriate in this instance.

Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation to DENY Defendant's (1) Motion to Quash (ECF No. 1) and (2) Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 7) as an order of this Court. Defendant's case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

DATED this 3rd day of January 2024.