Medved v. Medved

Filing 8

ORDER overruling the Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court (Doc. 6 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgmentaccordingly. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/18/2014. (KMG)

1
2
3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Justin Sloan Medved,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-02242-PHX-DKD

Michael Patrick Medved,

13

Defendant.

14

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

15

David K. Duncan, recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with

16

prejudice. (Doc. 6, Report and Recommendation (“R & R”).) Plaintiff filed his Objection

17

to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 7, Obj. to R & R.) In his Report and

18

Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s claims must be

19

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (R & R at 3.) The Magistrate Judge also noted:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[T]he substance of this Complaint has already been addressed by two other
judges of this Court. District Judge Tuchi dismissed with prejudice a
complaint which is nearly identical to the Complaint in this case. See CV14-2005-PHX-JJT. District Judge Snow then dismissed a nearly identical
Complaint on the same grounds. See CV-14-2076-PHX-GMS.
....
As Judge Tuchi pointed out in his Order, Plaintiff’s claims and the disputes
he describes are not among those matters which are permitted to be heard in
federal court. Any such claims may only be entertained in a court of general
jurisdiction such as a state trial court.
(Id. at 1-3.)

1

Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Court lacks subject

2

matter jurisdiction over his claims. (See Obj. to R & R.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

3

636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case and has fully considered

4

the Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation fail to

5

present any evidence to the Court to demonstrate factual error in the Magistrate Judge’s

6

findings and fail to cite any law or legal authority to show legal error in the Magistrate

7

Judge’s legal analysis. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this Court lacks

8

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 7).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court (Doc. 6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
accordingly.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2014.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-