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)

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