IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

GUY M. DOMAI, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2:17-cv-949

STEVEN B. WOOLDRIDGE, Judge Clark Waddoups Defendant.

By order dated January 14, 2020, and entered January 15, 2020 (ECF No. 45), the court, pursuant to its obligation under

(e)(2)(B) to determine if Mr. Domai’s claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ordered Mr. Domai to file within 60 days “an amended complaint amending, in light of the video footage obtained by Sergeant Wooldridge’s body-worn video camera, his claim that Sergeant Wooldridge illegally detained him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.” (ECF No. 45). Mr. Domai failed to comply with that order and as such has not filed an amended complaint showing “that notwithstanding the contents of the [video taken by Sergeant Woodlridge’s body camera] Sergeant Woodlridge did not have, and could not have reasonably believed that he had, probable cause to detain him.” (ECF No. 45). As such, the court relies on its review and reliance of the uncontested footage from Sergeant Wooldridge’s body-worn video camera, which was conventionally filed with his Answer and mailed to Mr. Domai. (ECF No. 38-2; 39; see Green v. Post,

(10th Cir. 2009)). Based upon that footage, the court finds that arguable probable cause existed for Sergeant Wooldridge to detain Mr. Domai. As such, Sergeant Wooldridge is entitled to qualified immunity, and Mr. Domai’s complaint against him thus fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Stonecipher v. Valles,

(10th Cir. 2014); Peterson v. Jensen,

(10th Cir. 2004). The court therefore ORDERS, pursuant to its authority under

(e)(2)(B), that Mr. Domai’s claims against Sergeant Wooldridge are HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk is ordered to CLOSE this matter.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2020.

BY THE COURT: Leib Dattagle”™ Clark Waddoups United States District Judge