Webb v. Weber County Government et al

Filing 228

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying 118 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 130 Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying 161 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 3/18/15. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DAVID WEBB,
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
TIMOTHY SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-CV-00128
District Judge Dee Benson

Before the court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate
Judge Dustin B. Pead on October 10, 2014, recommending that this court deny Plaintiff’s
summary judgment motion, grant the Ogden City Defendants’ summary judgment motion, and
grant in part and deny in part the Weber County Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Also
before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dkt. No. 205.)
The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation within fourteen (14) days after receiving it. On October 23, 2014, Plaintiff
filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 183.) On October 27, 2014,
the Ogden City Defendants filed their “Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and
Recommendation.” (Dkt. No. 182.) The Weber County Defendants filed their “Response to
Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and Recommendation” on November 6, 2014. (Dkt. No. 188.)
On October 28, 2014, the Weber County Defendants filed their own “Objections to the Report
and Recommendation Dated October 10, 2014.” (Dkt. No. 184.) Finally, Plaintiff filed his

“Opposition to Ogden City & Weber County Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to
R&R Dated 10 October 2014” on November 3, 2014. (Dkt. No. 187).
On December 22, 2014, the court held a status conference. At the status conference, the
court indicated its willingness to appoint counsel for Plaintiff. The court appointed Steve
Killpack, former Utah Federal Public Defender, to be Plaintiff’s attorney. The court ordered
Plaintiff—through his appointed counsel—to file a new objection to the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation, believing that this could provide clarity to the court.
Although Plaintiff initially accepted his appointed counsel, Mr. Killpack did not continue
to represent the Plaintiff. Instead, the Plaintiff had attorneys at Sykes McAllister Law Offices,
PLLC (“Sykes McAllister”) review his case. On February 20, 2015, that firm filed an objection
to the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Dkt. No. 199.) Defendants responded
to Plaintiff’s objections on March 12, 2015. (Dkt. No. 213.)
One week after his new objection was filed, Plaintiff filed a pro se motion, contrary to the
advice of Sykes McAllister. Consequently, on March 4, 2015, Sykes McAllister withdrew as
counsel for Plaintiff. That same day, Plaintiff filed his motion to appoint counsel. Defendants
responded to Plaintiff’s motion on March 9, 2015 (Dkt. No. 208) and Plaintiff filed a reply on
March 13, 2015. (Dkt. No. 220.)
Having conducted a thorough review of all relevant materials, including all of the
objections to the Report and Recommendation, the responses to those objections, the record that
was before the magistrate judge, and the reasoning set forth in the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court agrees with the analysis and conclusion of the magistrate judge.

2

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and issues the
following Order:
The Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 118) is DENIED.
The Ogden City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 130) on all of
Plaintiff’s claims is GRANTED.
Weber County Defendants West, Johnson, and Flatt’s motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. No. 161) on Plaintiff’s illegal strip search claim is DENIED.
Weber County Defendants Thompson, West, Johnson, and Flatt’s motion for summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s prolonged detention claim is DENIED.
Weber County Defendant Thompson’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
supervisory liability claim for Plaintiff’s prolonged detention is DENIED.
The Weber County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 161) on all of
Plaintiff’s remaining claims is GRANTED.
The court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel.
DATED this 18th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Judge Dee Benson
United States District Judge

3