Thompson v. State of Utah

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING 50 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: This action as against all named defendants is DISMISSED as frivolous under the authority of the IFP statute. The Court is denying as moot 38 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 39 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 40 Motion ; denying 25 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying as moot 26 Motion ; denying as moot 27 Motion ; denying as moot 28 Motion ; denying as moot 29 Motion. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 3/22/2019. (mas) Modified by adding link on 3/22/2019 (mas).

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

MICHAEL HOBBS THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

vs.

STATE OF UTAH, et al.,

Case No. 2:18-cv-307

Defendants.

Judge Dee Benson

Before the court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate
Judge Paul M. Warner on February 27, 2019, recommending: (1) that this action be DISMISSED
on the basis that it is frivolous under the authority of the in forma pauperis (IFP) statute; (2) that
the State Defendants’1 motion to dismiss, the WCF Defendants’2 motion to dismiss, and

1

The State Defendants include: the State of Utah; the Utah Attorney General’s Office, the
Department of Recovery Services; the Department of Workforce Services; and the Utah
Department of Health.
2

The WCF Defendants include: WCF Mutual Insurance Company, fka Workers
Compensation Fund; Vergae Oler, and any and all other officers, representatives and/or
employees of WCF Mutual Insurance in their capacity with WCF Mutual Insurance.
1

Plaintiff’s motion to disregard the motions to dismiss, be DENIED AS MOOT; (3) that
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint be DENIED on the basis of futility; and (4) that all
other motions filed by Plaintiff be DENIED AS MOOT as they have no bearing on the analysis
of Plaintiff’s amended complaint or the court’s conclusion that the action is frivolous. (Dkt. No.
50.)
The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy of it. None of the parties
have filed such an objection and the time for doing so has passed.
Having reviewed all relevant materials, including the reasoning set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation and ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1.

This action as against all named defendants is DISMISSED as frivolous under the
authority of the IFP statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

2.

The motion to dismiss filed by State Defendants (Dkt. No. 39), the motion to
dismiss filed by WCF Defendants (Dkt. No. 38), and Plaintiff’s motion to
disregard the motions to dismiss (Dkt. No. 40), are DENIED AS MOOT.

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED on the basis
that Plaintiff’s amended complaint is frivolous and providing him the opportunity
to amend the complaint yet again would be futile.

4.

All of the additional motions filed by Plaintiff in this action (Dkt. Nos. 26, 27, 28,
29) are DENIED AS MOOT on the basis that the motions have no bearing on the

2

analysis of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, or on the court’s conclusion that the
complaint is frivolous.
DATED this 22nd day of March, 2019.

_________________________________
Dee Benson
United States District Judge

3