Barker v. Utah Department of Environmental Quality et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This action is DISMISSED. Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate this case 49 is DISMISSED as moot. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 6/15/2020. (lnp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
EDITH BARKER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
AMANDA SMITH, BRAD JOHNSON,
SCOTT BAIRD, SCOTT ANDERSON,
RUSTY LUNDBERG, CRAIG JONES,
PHIL GOBLE and GARY HERBERT;
Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00068-DB-CMR
District Judge Dee Benson
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero

Before the court is the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Cecilia
M. Romero, dated February 13, 2020. (Dkt. No. 44.) In this Report and Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Romero recommends that the court dismiss this action. The parties were
notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days of
service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Ms. Barker objected to the Report
and Recommendation on March 16, 2020. (Dkt. No. 49.) Defendants responded to Ms. Barker’s
Objection on April 3, 2020. (Dkt. No. 52.)
Ms. Barker’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 30) asserts three causes of action: (1)
Violation of Title VII; (2) Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); and (3)
Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She names Governor Gary Herbert as a
defendant, along with seven other individual defendants, each of whom is employed by the State
of Utah: Scott Anderson, Scott Baird, Phil Goble, Brad Johnson, Craig Jones, Rusty Lundberg,
and Amanda Smith. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Romero concluded
that Ms. Barker’s Title VII and ADA claims should be dismissed with prejudice because the First
Amended Complaint includes only individual Defendants. Title VII and the ADA only provide

for causes of action against a plaintiff’s employer. While these Defendants may have been Ms.
Barker’s supervisors or managers, they were not her employer.
Magistrate Judge Romero also recommended that Ms. Barker’s § 1983 claim be
dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a plausible claim for relief. Specifically,
Magistrate Judge Romero found that Ms. Barker’s Amended Complaint lacked sufficient factual
allegations of the personal involvement, causation, and state of mind to tie any of the Defendants
to Ms. Barker’s alleged harm. Magistrate Judge Romero further found that Ms. Barker’s § 1983
claim warranted dismissal for being entirely duplicative of the claims asserted in Case No. 1:18cv-00061.
The court has performed a de novo review of the record that was before the magistrate
judge and the reasoning set forth in her Report and Recommendation. Having carefully reviewed
the record, as well as the arguments set forth in Ms. Barker’s Objection, the court agrees with the
reasoning and assessment of Magistrate Judge Romero. Accordingly, the court finds that the
analysis and conclusion of the magistrate judge are correct, and the Report and Recommendation
will be adopted. Plaintiff’s Objection is therefore overruled.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 44) is ADOPTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate
this case (Dkt. No. 49) is DISMISSED as moot.
DATED this 15th day of June, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

DEE BENSON
United States District Judge