Amack v. Young Williams PC

In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas _____________ Case No. 5:21-cv-04054-TC-TJJ _____________ KIM MARIE AMACK, Plaintiff v. YOUNG WILLIAMS PC, ET AL., Defendants _____________ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James issued a Report and Recommen- dation that Plaintiff Kim Marie Amack’s claims against Young Wil- liams, the Shawnee County District Court, and several court employees be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6), without leave to amend. Doc. 5 at 3–5. The R&R allowed Amack 14 days after service to file any ob- jections. Doc. 5 at 5. Amack timely filed an objection, Doc. 6, and subsequently filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. 7, and a motion for order (titled “Motion to Dismiss and Reimburse”), Doc. 8. For the following reasons, Amack’s objection is overruled, and her motions are denied as moot.

Objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition must be “both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court . . . .” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). To be timely, the objection must be made within 14 days after service of a copy of the recommended disposition.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections are sufficiently specific if they “fo- cus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060. Where a party fails to make a proper objection, district courts have discretion to re- view the recommendation under any standard they deem appropriate.

Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omit- ted).

Amack’s objection, even liberally construed, see Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), identifies no error within Judge James’s Report and Recommendation. It focuses on Amack’s view of the merits of her case and the inequity of her situation—essentially repeating the same arguments that the R&R found lacking—but it does not identify any mistakes of fact or errors of law in the R&R. Most importantly, it does not identify any legitimate basis for federal juris- diction. For instance, Amack once again contends that she and one of the defendants are both citizens of the State of Kansas. Doc. 6 at 1-2.

This precludes jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530–31 (1967). And invoking a crimi- nal statute, Doc. 6 at 4–5, does not cure Amack’s failure to establish jurisdiction for an alleged civil rights violation, see Doc. 5 at 3–4, be- cause 18 U.S.C. § 242 is a criminal statute that creates no civil remedy or private right of action, see, e.g., Shahin v. Darling, 606 F. Supp. 2d 525, 538 (D. Del. 2009).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Amack’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 6, is overruled. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. 5, is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Doc. 7, and motion for order, Doc. 8, are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 3, 2022 s/ Toby Crouse Toby Crouse United States District Judge