Pankey v. Ridley's Food Corporation et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 43 Report and Recommendations.; granting 29 Motion to Dismiss; Defendants Joinder in Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 36) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (dks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

STEVEN D. PANKEY,
Case No. 1:11-CV-00641-EJL-CWD
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
RIDLEY’S FOOD CORPORATION,
dba RIDLEY’S FOOD & DRUG,
JERRY RIDLEY, individually, ACTION
COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., JOHN
F. MUIR, GRANT E. MUIR, JR.,
indivdually,
Defendants.

On July 10, 2012, United States Chief Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be
granted. Any party may challenge a Magistrate Judge’s proposed recommendation by
filing written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the
magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court
must then “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The district court
may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made
by the magistrate. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation’s conclusions arguing
they are in error in recommending that his claims be dismissed. (Dkt. 44.) The Court has
considered the Plaintiff’s contentions, the response by the Defendants, conducted a de
novo review of the record and, upon that basis, finds as follows as to the Motion to
Dismiss. (Dkt. 45.)
Discussion
Having reviewed the Motion, briefing, and the entire record in these matters, the
Court finds the Report and Recommendation has correctly decided the Motion. The sum
and substance of the Plaintiff’s objections are the same arguments made in response to the
Motion to Dismiss. The Magistrate Judge addressed these arguments and decided the
issues presented in the Motion consistent with this Court’s own view of the record.
Having reviewed the parties’ briefing and the record herein and for the reasons stated in
the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with Chief Judge Dale’s conclusions
and will grant the Motion to Dismiss. The Court further agrees that the defects in
Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot be cured by amendment and, therefore, no leave to amend
shall be granted.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2

ORDER
Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, this
Court finds that Chief Magistrate Judge Dale’s Report and Recommendation is well
founded in law and consistent with this Court’s own view of the evidence in the record.
Acting on the recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Dale, and this Court being fully
advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on July 10, 2012 (Dkt. 43), should be, and is hereby,
INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 29) is GRANTED.

2)

Defendants’ Joinder in Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 36) is GRANTED.

3)

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
DATED: August 28, 2012

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 3