Crichlow v. Davis County Prosecutors Office

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

MAURICE CRICHLOW, ORDER ADOPTING [41] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING [31] Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; v. DENYING [35] PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; AND JEFFREY THOMPSON; BRANDON L. DISMISSING ACTION WITH POLL; DAVIS COUNTY PREJUDICE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE; RICHARD LARSEN; DAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S Case No. 1:23-cv-00061 OFFICE; ANDREW OBLAD; and TROY S. RAWLINGS, District Judge David Barlow

Defendants. Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

The Report and Recommendation1 issued by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on January 16, 2025 recommends the court (i) grant Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings;2 (ii) deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint;3 and (iii) dismiss the case with prejudice.4 Mr. Crichlow was notified of his right to file objections 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 72.5 As of the date of this order, Mr. Crichlow did not file an objection.6

1 R. & R., ECF No. 41, filed January 16, 2025. 2 ECF No. 31, filed July 9, 2024. 3 ECF No. 35, filed July 12, 2024. 4 R. & R. 22. 5 Id. at 22–23. 6 On January 31, 2025, Mr. Crichlow filed a motion for hearing in response to Magistrate Judge Oberg’s Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 42. Aside from being filed after the 14-day deadline, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); ECF No. 4 (certifying consent to receive service via email), this one-sentence motion is not a cognizable objection. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996) (requiring objections to be timely Because the specified deadline has passed without the filing of a written objection, and because Magistrate Judge Oberg’s analysis and conclusion are sound, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, (1) Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; (ii) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED; and (iii) Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Signed February 4, 2025. BY THE COURT

David Barlow United States District Judge

and specific enough to enable the “district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).