Catlin v. Salt Lake City School District et al

Filing 381

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order- finding as moot 377 Motion to Stay ; granting 188 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ; granting 190 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ; denying 245 Motion ; adopting Report and Recommen dations re 269 Report and Recommendations.; re 269 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 188 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial Judgment) filed by Salt Lake City School District, 190 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by McKell Withers, 245 MOTION to take leave. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 9/18/14. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

SUSAN CATLIN,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:08-CV-00362-CW-PMW

SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
Governmental Entity, and MCKELL
WITHERS, Superintendent, in his official
and in his individual capacity,

Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.

This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). (See Dkt. No. 42.) On January 25, 2013, Judge Warner issued a Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 269) recommending that the court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File a Supplemental Pleading (Dkt. No. 245), grant Defendant Salt Lake City School District’s
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 188), and Defendant McKell Withers’
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 190).
Judge Warner explained that, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has liberally
construed her pleadings in accordance with the principle that courts should hold the pleadings of
pro se litigants to a “less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotations and citation omitted). (See Rep. & Rec. 4 [Dkt.
No. 269].) The court, in reviewing the Report and Recommendation and upon a de novo review
of Judge Warner’s findings, has also liberally construed the pleadings as required. Additionally,

1

because a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
on which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alt.
Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1160 (10th Cir. 2000), the court
will only grant Defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings if it “appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim[s] which would entitle [her] to
relief.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Conley v. Gisbson, 335
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). This includes application of the Twombly/Iqbal standard to Plaintiff’s
claims. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 676-79. But in preparing his Report and Recommendation, Judge Warner has not adopted,
and the court in reviewing it will not adopt, the role of advocate for Plaintiff. Hall, 935 F.2d at
1110. Judge Warner, however, took Plaintiff’s repeated complaints that she has difficulty
communicating in writing seriously and solicitously granted her 28 extensions of time to file her
objections to his Report and Recommendation, pushing the court’s consideration and resolution
of this issue well past a year since Judge Warner entered his Report and Recommendation.
The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s numerous Objections and Supplemental Objections to
Judge Warner’s Report and Recommendation, as allowed by Judge Warner, the first of which
was filed on October 1, 2013 as a result of the numerous extensions of time granted. (See Dkt.
Nos. 334, 342, 347, 359, 369, 371, and 374.) These Objections, on whole, merely reemphasize
grievances Plaintiff has raised about her claims and the process surrounding those claims in
previous pleadings. These have been considered and rejected by Judge Warner. (Dkt. No. 269.)
Plaintiff’s Objections have not persuaded the court that Judge Warner erred in his findings in the
Report and Recommendation.

2

Accordingly, upon a de novo review of Judge Warner’s findings and analysis, the court
APPROVES AND ADOPTS Judge Warner’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 269), with
the result that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Pleading (Dkt. No. 245) is
DENIED, Defendant Salt Lake City School District’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings (Dkt. No. 188) is GRANTED, and Defendant McKell Withers’ Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 190) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay of Judgment by Judge
Waddoups is also therefore terminated as moot. (Dkt. No. 377.)
SO ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

3