Schmidt v. Herbert

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING 31 Report and Recommendations. The court grants Defendant's 14 Motion to Dismiss, which moots Defendant's 14 Motion to Quash Service, Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Determin e Jurisdiction, Plaintiff's 28 Motion to Strike, Plaintiff's 29 Motion re: California A7, and Plaintiff's 30 Motion to Review Judicial Duties. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 2/27/2019. (eat)

______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

DARLENE SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GOVERNOR GARY HERBERT,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:18CV311-DAK-BCW
Judge Dale A. Kimball

This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On February 6, 2019, Magistrate Judge Wells issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and that Defendant’s Motion to
Quash Service, Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike,
Plaintiff’s Motion re: California A7, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Review Judicial Duties be
considered moot. 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.
Plaintiff filed an objection on February 19, 2019.
A Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is subject to de novo review by this
court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court has reviewed the
Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the

record de novo. The court agrees with Magistrate Judge Wells’ recommendation to dismiss the
case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court construes pro se
filings liberally and has carefully read Plaintiff’s filings. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, despite the length of Plaintiff’s filings, the court cannot find
any actionable legal claims or facts to support such claims.
Accordingly, the court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Wells’ Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. The court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No.
14], which moots Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service [Docket No. 14], Plaintiff’s Motion to
Determine Jurisdiction [Docket No. 22], Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [Docket No. 28], Plaintiff’s
Motion re: California A7 [Docket No. 29], and Plaintiff’s Motion to Review Judicial Duties
[Docket No. 30]. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

2