Sussman v. Trader Joe's
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS- the court GRANTS Trader Joes Motion to Dismiss, 6 , and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. This case is closed. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 9/6/17. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
MICHAEL C. SUSSMAN,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
Case No. 2:16-cv-1096-CW-DBP
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY,
Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On
July 7, 2017, Judge Pead issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the case be
dismissed for failure to state a viable claim. (Dkt. No. 12.) As Judge Pead notes, any § 1983
claims Michael Sussman pleads necessarily fail because Mr. Sussman has not alleged that
Defendant Trader Joe’s could be considered a state actor in these circumstances. (Id. at 2.) Mr.
Sussman’s claims under the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Utah
Administrative Code also fail because the Complaint lacks factual allegations supporting such
claims. (Id. at 3-4.)
Mr. Sussman has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to
do so has expired. Therefore, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the
findings and conclusions of the court, (Dkt. No. 12), with the following modification: The court
does not see any basis by which Mr. Sussman can assert a cause of action, or basis to believe
that, if allowed leave to amend, an amended complaint could state a cause of action. Therefore,
the court GRANTS Trader Joe’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 6), and DISMISSES this case
with prejudice. This case is closed.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
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?