Bloomquist v. State of Utah et al

Filing 79

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS -Amending as to 77 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, Terminate Motions, Order on Report and Recommendations. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 9/30/16. (jmr)

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

DARRELL BLOOMQUIST,
Plaintiff,

AMENDED 1 ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

v.
STATE OF UTAH et al,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00848
Judge Clark Waddoups

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). (Dkt. No. 7). On September 14, 2016, Judge Warner issued docket text orders
denying plaintiff’s motion for hearing (Dkt. No. 70) and granting motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 71) and Memorandum Decision orders denying plaintiff’s motion for
service of process (Dkt. No. 72) and motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. No. 73). On September 19,
2016, Judge Warner issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court dismiss
Mr. Bloomquist’s complaint against the State of Utah, the Utah Office for Victims of Crime, Salt
Lake County, the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Department, the Cottonwood Heights City Police
Department, and several individual officers. (Dkt. No. 74). Mr. Bloomquist timely filed an
objection to Judge Warner’s denial of miscellaneous orders and to the Report and
Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 75.)

1

This order has been modified to eliminate reference to any objection to the order granting Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 71).

Federal law categorizes magistrate judge decisions into two categories: nondispositive
and dispositive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. When a magistrate judge's decision concerns a
nondispositive matter, the district judge is to “set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id. at 72(a). When a magistrate judge's decision concerns a
dispositive matter, the district judge is only to recommend a disposition and, upon timely
objection by one of the parties, the district court judge is to review the magistrate judge's
recommendation de novo. Id. at 72(b).
The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo and has carefully
considered Mr. Bloomquist’s Complaint and subsequent pro se pleadings pursuant to the in
forma pauperis statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court has also carefully considered Mr.
Bloomquist’s objection and defendants’ response. After doing so, the court agrees with Judge
Warner’s analysis that Mr. Bloomquist’s claims are time-barred, that his § 1983 claims against
the state or arms of the state are barred by sovereign immunity, that his § 1983 claims cannot be
brought against non-persons such as states, state subdivisions, and other departments and
agencies, and that his claims are barred by his failure to provide timely notice under the
Governmental Immunity Act of Utah. Furthermore, the court rejects Mr. Bloomquist’s argument,
made for the first time in his objection, that the state is liable under § 1983 on a respondeat
superior theory based on the reasoning in defendants’ objection. See also City of Canton, Ohio v.
Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 387 (1989). Accordingly, the court APPROVES AND ADOPTS Judge
Warner’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 74) in its entirety.
The court has also reviewed Judge Warner’s miscellaneous orders denying a motion for
hearing, denying a motion for service of process, and denying plaintiff’s motion to appoint

2