Schmidt v. Supreme Ct Ethics Committee

District Court, D. Utah

Schmidt v. Supreme Ct Ethics Committee

Trial Court Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

DARLENE SCHMIDT,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING [38] REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION

ETHICS AND DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE Case No. 2:21-cv-376-DBB-DBP OF THE UTAH SUPREME COURT, PENNIANN SCHUMANN, RHETT District Judge David Barlow DUTSON, BRADY WHITEHEAD, HONORABLE KEITH KELLY, PEHP Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead HEALTH & BENEFITS, and KIMBERLY J. SAUL,

Defendants.

The Report and Recommendation1 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on October 24, 2022 recommends that this matter be dismissed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

because it fails to state a claim,2 and in the alternative, for the reasons set forth in Defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss.3 The parties were notified of their right to file

1 Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 38, filed October 24, 2022. 2

Id. at 5

. Under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

, the court will dismiss claims in a complaint filed in forma pauperis that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B) (2019). Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts alleged and it would be futile to provide an opportunity to amend. Perkins v. Kan. Dept of Corrs.,

165 F.3d 803, 806

(10th Cir. 1999). 3 ECF No. 38 at 5. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under several theories, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all of which result in dismissal of this action. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, filed July 18, 2022; Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF 25, filed July 18, 2022; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 26, filed July 20, 2022; Defs.’ Mot to Dismiss, ECF No. 28, filed August 1, 2022. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. See ECF No. 38 at 1. objections to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days of its service pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.4 No party filed an objection. Because no party filed a written objection to the Report and Recommendation by the specified deadline, and because the analysis and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are sound, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pead is adopted. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation® is ADOPTED. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED and Plaintiff?s complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. DATED this 16 day of November, 2022.

BY THE COURT David Barlow United States District Judge

4 ECF No. 38 at 5. 5

Id.

Reference

Status
Unknown