Domai v. Utah Highway Patrol et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Case Closed.; finding as moot 7 Motion for Service of Process. ; finding as moot 9 Motion for Extension of Time; adopting Report and Recommendations re 11 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 6/19/14. (jmr)

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

GUY M. DOMAI,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:13-cv-00720-CW-BCW
UTAH HIGHWAY PATROL et al.,
Judge Clark Waddoups
Defendant.

This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). (See Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 3.) On January 30, 2014, Judge Wells issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No.
8) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted
based on the court’s sua sponte determination as required by that provision. (Dkt. No. 11.)
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and consistent with Judge Wells’ approach, the court will
only dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim where it “appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Conley v. Gisbson, 335
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
Plaintiff was granted extra time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)—the filing deadline was continued to March 7, 2014. (Dkt. No. 16.)
Plaintiff, however, did not file the Objection (Dkt. No. 18) until March 12, 2014, though the
1

filing is back-dated to March 7, 2014. Though Plaintiff’s Objection was untimely, the court has
nevertheless carefully reviewed and considered it, given the fact of his pro se representation.
The court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s objections. For the reasons stated by Judge
Wells, the complaint fails to state a federal cause of action against any defendant. The original
complaint (Dkt. No. 4) fails to include sufficient facts to determine what, if any, wrong plaintiff
is complaining about. On December 4, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8).
Again plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a federal cause of action and asserts no facts
under which the court could find a basis for federal jurisdiction.
The court acknowledges that the conduct described in the Amended Complaint and
explained in greater detail in Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation is
offensive and if proven may provide the basis for a cause of action against Mr. Beal under state
law. There are no facts to support a claim against any of the other named Defendants. To the
extent Plaintiff may be able to state a cause of action against Mr. Beal under Utah law, the court
is without jurisdiction to consider such a claim and must dismiss the case. The court is further
required to dismiss the case for the reasons stated in Judge Wells’ Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, upon a de novo review of its findings and analysis, the court denies the objections
and APPROVES AND ADOPTS Judge Wells’ Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11). This
case is DISMISSED and all pending motions DENIED as moot. The case is therefore closed.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

2