Lovelace v. Nevada Dept of Employment Training and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to 35 Report and Recommendations. The court DISMISSES Plaintiffs action without prejudice. Signed by Judge David Barlow on 08/28/2024. (kpf)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
ORDER ADOPTING [35] REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

TIWANDA LOVELACE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:23-cv-00535-DBB-DBP

v.

District Judge David Barlow

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING, &
REHABILITATION, CHRISTOPHER
SEWELL, in his capacity as administrator,
and KRISTINE K. NELSON, in her capacity
as administrator
Defendants.

The Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B.
Pead on August 6, 2024, recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff Tiwanda Lovelace’s case
without prejudice for lack of venue. 1 The magistrate judge observed that none of the Defendants
reside in Utah and none of the claims are related to Utah. 2 Additionally, the magistrate judge
observed that transferring is not in the interests of justice, as Ms. Lovelace’s claims are unlikely
to have merit and two previous cases filed by Plaintiff asserting similar claims in this district
have been dismissed. 3 Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that the case be
dismissed. 4

ECF No. 35, at 5–6.
Id. at 3.
3
Id. at 5.
4
Id. at 5.
1
2

1

Finally, the magistrate judge advised Ms. Lovelace of her right to object to the Report
and Recommendation within 14 days of its service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 5 Ms. Lovelace did not file an objection. Therefore, the court
reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. 6 Having done so, the court finds that
the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions are sound and no clear error appears on the face
of the record.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation 7 is
ADOPTED. The court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action without prejudice.

Signed August 28, 2024.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Barlow
United States District Judge

Id. at 5.
Johnson v. Progressive Leasing, No. 2:22-cv-00052, 2023 WL 4044514, at *2 (D. Utah June 16, 2023) (citing
Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)). “[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district
court or for appellate review.” Port City Props. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 518 F.3d 1186, 1190 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008)
(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. 2121 E. 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)).
7
ECF No. 35.
5
6

2