Barela v. Grenko et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Case Closed.; denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 7 Motion for Service of Process and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 4/18/14. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
VINCENT PAUL BARELA,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
Case No. 2:13-cv-00430-CW-DBP
KAREN GRENKO, et al.,
Judge Clark Waddoups
This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). (See Dkt. No. 8.) Consistent with Judge Pead’s treatment of the case, because
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will only dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a
claim where it “appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts . . . which would
entitle him to relief.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quotations omitted).
On November 20, 2013, Judge Pead issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9)
recommending that the court deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt.
No. 6) and Motion for Service of Process (Dkt. No. 7). Judge Pead’s Report and
Recommendation also recommended that the court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (See Dkt. No. 9.)
Plaintiff failed to file an Objection or other response to Judge Pead’s Report and
Recommendation within the permitted timeframe.
Accordingly, and upon a de novo review of the Judge Pead’s findings, the court
APPROVES AND ADOPTS Judge Pead’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) in its
entirety. Plaintiff’s motions (Dkt. Nos. 6 & 7) are therefore DENIED without prejudice and the
case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
This case is therefore closed.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge