Gadd v. South Jordan City et al

Filing 118

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING 113 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 88 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; objections overruled. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 9/24/18 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
MATTHEW GADD,
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:15-cv-00667-DN-EJF

SOUTH JORDAN CITY, et al.,

District Judge David Nuffer

Defendants.
The Report and Recommendation to Deny Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint as to Jonathan Campbell, Edward Montgomery, and Gene Moss (“R&R”) 1 issued by
United States Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on July 9, 2018 recommends that Plaintiff
Matthew Gadd’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”) 2 be denied as
to Defendants Jonathan Campbell, a South Jordan City police officer; Edward Montgomery, a
South Jordan City prosecutor; and Gene Moss, a South Jordan City court officer (collectively,
“Employees”).
De novo review has been completed of those portions of the report, proposed findings,
and recommendations to which objection 3 was made, including the record that was before the
Magistrate Judge and the reasoning set forth in the R&R. 4
Gadd objects to the R&R because, according to him, the Magistrate Judge failed to accept
as true all facts alleged in Gadd’s proposed amended complaint and to view all reasonable

1

Docket no. 113, filed July 9, 2018.

2

Docket no. 88, filed November 9, 2017.

3

Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Objections”), docket no. 114, filed July
23, 2018.
4

28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

factual inferences in his favor. 5 While courts accept a complaint’s well-pleaded factual
allegations when considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, no presumption of
truthfulness is given to “bald assertions,” legal conclusions, opinions, deductions, or
“opprobrious epithets”—even if they are characterized as factual allegations. 6 Here, the
Magistrate Judge gave proper consideration to the factual allegations set forth in Gadd’s
proposed amended complaint. The Magistrate Judge likewise correctly concluded that Gadd’s
proposed amendments are futile as to the Employees for the reasons stated in the R&R.
Gadd further objects to the R&R because, according to him, the Magistrate Judge ignored
“common sense notion[s]” emanating from case law showing that the Employees’ conduct
violated clearly established law. 7 Gadd is incorrect. The Magistrate Judge properly interpreted
and applied applicable case law. She also correctly concluded that Gadd’s proposed amendments
are futile as to the Employees because, as explained in the R&R, the Employees’ conduct did not
violate clearly established law at that time. Moreover, even if—as Gadd argues—Montgomery
were not entitled to absolute immunity, Montgomery would still be entitled to qualified
immunity because Gadd has not shown that Montgomery’s conduct violated clearly established
law.
The analysis and conclusion of the Magistrate Judge are accepted and the R&R 8 is
adopted.
As an aside, and regardless of the merits of the parties’ respective positions, all parties are

5

Motion § 3.

6
In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 2003) (citation omitted); In re Party City Secs.
Litigation, 147 F. Supp. 2d 282, 297 (D.N.J. 2001) (citations omitted); Kramer v. Van Dyke Pub. Schs., 918 F. Supp.
1100, 1104 (E.D. Mich. 1996) (citations omitted).
7

Id. § 4.

8

Docket no. 113, filed July 9, 2018.

2

reminded of their obligation to comply with the Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility,
including particularly standards 1 and 4. In accordance with these standards, it is not appropriate
(let alone persuasive) to, for example, lightly refer to opposing parties as “corrupt and brutally
unjust” or to their attorneys as liars and bullies. 9
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections 10 are OVERRULED and the R&R 11 is
ADOPTED.
Signed September 24, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

David Nuffer
United States District Judge

9

See, e.g., Plaintiff Matthew Gadd’s Memorandum in Reply to Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion 2, 8, 10-11, docket no. 92, filed November 22, 2017.
10

Docket no. 114, filed July 23, 2018.

11

Docket no. 113, filed July 9, 2018.

3