Oliver v. Nielson et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL ; denying 18 Motion to Amend/Correct; adopting Report and Recommendations re 24 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 12/4/17. (ss)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH D. BRUCE OLIVER, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. DEPUTY LARRY G. NIELSON, DEPUTY BRENT E. PETERS, DEPUTY KEVIN P. FIELDING, DEPUTY M. DAVIS, DEPUTY ALAN BLACK, JOHN DOES 110, Case No. 1:16-cv-155-JNP-BCW District Judge Jill N. Parrish Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells Defendants. Plaintiff D. Bruce Oliver, proceeding pro se, filed what is titled Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15 and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59 (ECF No. 18). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The matter was fully briefed, and after review of the parties’ briefings, Judge Wells issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion. The Report and Recommendation specified that the parties should file objections within fourteen days of service. No objection was filed, and the time for objecting has now passed. Based on the Court’s de novo review of the record, the relevant legal authority, and the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation is a correct application of the law to the facts. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED; and 4. If Plaintiff chooses to refile his motion for leave to amend the complaint, he is ORDERED to attach a copy of his proposed amended complaint to such motion. DATED December 4, 2017. _____________________________ Judge Jill N. Parrish United States District Judge 2

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?