Webb v. Weber County Government et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 9 Motion to Amend Complaint ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 11 Report and Recommendations. See order for further details.Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 7/18/12. (jlw)

Download PDF
1011 JUL I 8 A In: 16 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH DISTR~IbIVISION BY: DEPuTy 1"'1 ~ DAVID WEBB, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 1:11-cv-00128 WEBER COUNTY, CRAIG DEARDEN, JAN ZOGMAISTER, KERRY GIBSON, DEE SMITH, CAITLIN GOCKNOUR, NEIL GARNER, AMY WICKS, BART BLAIR, BRANDON STEPHENSON, DOUG STEPHENS, SUSIE VON HOOSER, TIMOTHY SCOTT, K. MURRAY, TERRY THOMPSON, KEVIN MCCLEOD, KEVIN BURTON, R. WEST, R. JOHNSON, R. GATES, A. FLATT, JON GREINER, JAMES RETALLICK, AND TWO JOHN DOES, Judge Dee Benson Defendants. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba on April 25, 2012, recommending: (1) Plaintiff David Webb's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Service of Process (Dkt. No.3) be granted in part and denied in part; (2) Plaintifrs Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No.4) be denied; Plaintifrs Motion to amend his Complaint 1 be granted (Dkt. No.9); and (4) certain claims and defendants be dismissed from the Complaint pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's screening capacity under 28 U.S.C. § I 915(e)(2). The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after receiving it. Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation on May 9, 2012 (Dkt. No. 14). None of the Defendants filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Having reviewed all relevant materials, including the reasoning set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiffs Objection to the Report and Recommendation, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and hereby: (1) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No.4); GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. No.9); GRANTS in part and DENIES in part, as specified below, Plaintiff's Motion for Service of Process (Dkt. No.3); and DISMISSES certain complaints and defendants from the action for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Specifically, the Court: (1) DISMISSES Plaintiffs fourth claim, "Count IV," alleging a violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (2) DISMISSES Plaintiffs fifth claim, "Count V," alleging "Civil Rights Violated." (3) DISMISSES Plaintiff's seventh claim, "Count VII," titled "Resisting Unlawful Arrest." (4) DISMISSES Plaintiffs attempt to incorporate the Sixth Amendment claim from a case presently before the Court: Williams et al., v. Weber County, et al., (1: 11­ cv-00021). (5) DISMISSES Defendants 1-4, Weber County, Craig Dearden, Jan Zogmaister, and Kerry Gibson. 2 (6) DISMISSES Defendant 5, Dee Smith, Weber County Attorney. (7) DISMISSES Defendants 1-6, Caitlin Gochnour, Neil Garner, Amy Wicks, Bart Blair, Brandon Stephenson, Doug Stephens, and Susie Von Hooser. (8) DISMISSES Defendants 13-24 in their official capacities, Timothy Scott, K. Murray, John Doe Officer #1, Terry Thompson, Kevin McCleod, Kevin Burton, R. West, R. Johnson, R. Gates, A. Flatt, Jon Greiner, and Jon Doe Officer #2. (9) DISMISSES Defendant 25, James Retallick. (10) ORDERS the remaining Defendants (Defendants 13-24, in their individual capacities) be served with process as to the remaining claims, once the Complaint is appropriately amended. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this I~~f July, 2012. "" '--U- ;1 ~G J- Dee'sJnson United States District Judge 3 c _ .. ___ __

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?