Jackson v. RGIS Inventory Services
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendations re 3 Complaint. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/28/2015. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION ON DISMISSAL
OF DUPLICATIVE CASE
VERGIL ANN JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RGIS, LLC., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-CV-10 TS
Defendant.
District Judge Ted Stewart
Plaintiff Vergil Ann Jackson filed suit against Defendant RGIS, LLC., et al., in two
separate actions: case number 2:15-CV-09 (the “‘09 case”) and case number 2:15-CV-10 (the
“‘10 case”). Both cases were referred to Magistrate Judge Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), who issued a Report and Recommendation in the ‘10 case on May 4, 2015. 1
Magistrate Judge Wells recommended that the ‘10 case be dismissed because the case is
duplicative of the ‘09 case. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation on
May 18, 2015. Plaintiff makes no argument against duplicity, but rather asserts that she did not
consent to having the Magistrate Judge review her case.
When an objection is made within 14 days of a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo determination . . . of the recommendation to
which the objection is made.” 2 A “‘de novo determination’ contemplated by Congress in the
amended Federal Magistrate Acts requires that the district judge shall consider the record
1
Docket No. 23. This original recommendation was corrected due to an error in the case
caption on May 11, 2015 (Docket No. 29).
2
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
1
developed before the magistrate and make his own determination based on the record, without in
any way being bound to adopt the findings and conclusions proposed by the magistrate.” 3 Upon
de novo review, the Court finds that the ’10 case is duplicative of the ’09 case, involving the
same parties, interests, facts, and relief sought. Based on the Court’s inherent power to manage
its docket and the general principle to avoid duplicative litigation, the ‘10 case will be dismissed.
The Court notes that in the ’09 case, Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Process was granted and
the case will continue to move forward toward resolution. The dismissal of the ’10 case in no
way affects that process.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 23 and
29) is ADOPTED IN FULL. The ‘10 case is dismissed as duplicative.
The clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.
DATED this 28th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
3
Sims v. Wyrick, 552 F. Supp. 748, 750 (W.D. Mo. 1982).
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?