Patrick v. City of Saratoga Springs et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 6 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED; and Plaintiff's expedited motion for stay is deemed MOOT given that the alleged May 21, 2010 trial date has passed. Moreover, given that there is nothing on the docket to indicate that the bench trial to which plaintiff refers is before the Utah Federal District Court, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 6/23/2010. (rlr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION LINDSEY R. PATRICK, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION vs. CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, and LINDSAY JARVIS, Saratoga Springs City Prosecutor, Defendant. Case No. 2:10-CV-00434 Judge Dee Benson Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells on May 25, 2010, recommending that Mr. Patrick's Complaint be dismissed and that his motion for stay be denied or deemed moot. The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within ten (10) days after receiving it. Neither party has filed such an objection. Having reviewed all relevant materials, including the reasoning set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and enters the following Order: (1) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED; and (2) Plaintiff's Expedited Motion for stay is deemed MOOT given that the alleged May 21, 2010 trial date has passed. Moreover, given that there is nothing on the docket to indicate that the bench trial to which plaintiff refers is before the Utah Federal District Court, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Dated this 23rd day of June, 2010. ___________________________________ Dee Benson United States District Judge

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?