Arnett v. Howard et al

Filing 49

ORDERED that defendants' 37 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim/ Motion to Dismiss is denied in part and granted in part. The Clerk's Office is directed to transfer this action to Utah in accordance with the Court's orde r. Further ordered denying 39 Motion to Consolidate Cases. It is ordered that Magistrate Judge Ferraro's 47 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted by this Court as the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 6/24/2013.(BAR) [Transferred from Arizona on 6/25/2013.]

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 6 7 James Arnett, Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 Benjamin Snow Howard, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV-12-311-TUC-DCB ORDER 12 13 Magistrate Judge Ferraro issued his Report and Recommendation on May 29, 2013, 14 recommending that the District Court deny the motion to dismiss and transfer the action to 15 Utah. A copy was sent to all parties on May 29, 2013, notifying all parties that written 16 objections must be filed within fourteen days of service. 28 U.S.C. §636(b). No objections 17 to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation have been filed. Consequently, any 18 objections that have not been raised are waived and will not be addressed by the Court.1 19 The Court, having made an independent review of the record, orders as follows: 20 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21 47) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by this Court as the findings of fact and conclusions of 22 law. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is 24 DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The motion to dismiss is denied for lack of 25 personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 26 granted. The motion contains the alternative request to transfer venue to Utah, which the 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate this action with another civil action, but he is not the Plaintiff in that action, the basis for consolidation is unclear, and not all of the parties have been served. Defendants opposed the motion. The motion does not comply with LRCiv 42.1. 1 Court GRANTS, and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the 2 District of Utah. The Clerk’s Office is directed to transfer this action to Utah in accordance 3 with the Court’s Order. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) is DENIED. 5 DATED this 24th day of June, 2013. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2