Zemaitiene v. Salt Lake County et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING 77 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 73 ) and grants Defendant Off-Duty Services' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 72 ). Plaintiff's claims against Off-Duty Services are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 10/20/2020. (eat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ORDER ADOPTING & AFFIRMING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:17-CV-7-DAK-JCB
SALT LAKE COUNTY, ET AL.,
Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Paul Warner under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Due
to Magistrate Judge Warner’s retirement, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jared C.
Bennett. On September 24, 2020, Magistrate Judge Bennett issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the court grant Defendant Off Duty Services, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 72] and deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [ECF No. 73].
The Report and Recommendation notified Plaintiff that any objection to the Report and
Recommendation was required to be filed within fourteen days of receiving it. Although the
court mailed the Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff twenty-six days ago, Plaintiff has not
objected to the Report and Recommendation. There is some question as to whether Plaintiff is
aware of the Report and Recommendation because it was returned to the court as undeliverable.
However, Plaintiff has a duty to keep a current address on file with the court and to prosecute her
case. Her failure to do so cannot preclude the court from proceeding with its duty to review the
Report and Recommendation.
The court has reviewed the two pending motions de novo and agrees with the analysis of
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court, therefore, adopts the Report and
Recommendation as the Order of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike [ECF No. 73] and grants Defendant Off-Duty Services’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 72].
Plaintiff’s claims against Off-Duty Services are dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
DALE A. KIMBALL
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?