Moody v. Salt Lake County et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-denying 22 Motion to Dismiss. Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse no longer assigned to case; adopting Report and Recommendations re 33 Report and Recommendations.; re 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 22 MOTION to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support filed by Salt Lake County. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 7/3/18. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
SALT LAKE COUNTY, CAPTAIN
RICHARD CHURCH, JOHN AND JANE
Case No. 2:16-CV-1243
Judge Clark Waddoups
Plaintiff Virginia Moody, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action alleging
Defendants violated Title VII by retaliating against her for filing a sexual harassment complaint.
(ECF No. 2.) This action was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups,
who then referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 18.) The matter is now before the court on a Report and
Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Furse, dated June 7, 2018, in which she recommends
denial of Defendant Salt Lake County’s Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on April 23, 2018.
(ECF Nos. 22 & 33.) The Report and Recommendation is incorporated by reference. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Twenty-six days have passed since Magistrate Judge Furse entered her recommendation,
and it remains unopposed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (permitting a party, within fourteen days
of being served, to file written objections). Therefore, the court “may review [her] report under
any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because Ms. Moody is proceeding pro se, the court must liberally construe her pleadings, Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), but it cannot advocate for her, Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
After careful review of the record, applying a de novo standard of review, the court
AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Furse’s recommendation that dismissal with
prejudice of Ms. Moody’s complaint is a drastic sanction and not appropriate under the
circumstances of this case. Because Plaintiff represents she was unaware of the implications of
her attorneys’ withdrawal and is prepared to proceed and because dismissal with prejudice would
defeat her access to the courts entirely, the court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. (ECF No. 22.)
DATED this 3rd day of July, 2018.
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?