Cromar v. Powell

• Court: District Court, D. Utah
• Decided: April 28, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00625
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

PAUL KENNETH CROMAR, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING [28] REPORT AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATION

v. Case No. 2:20-cv-00625-DBB-DAO

KRAIG J. POWELL, District Judge David Barlow

Defendant. Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

The Report and Recommendation1 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss2 be granted and the action dismissed with prejudice.3 Magistrate Judge Oberg recommended this course of action4 because she concluded that the court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine5 and the Younger abstention doctrine.6 Magistrate Judge Oberg also concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of

1 Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 28, filed April 12, 2021. 2 Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, filed September 29, 2020. 3 Report and Recommendation at 9. 4 Id. at 6–8. 5 This doctrine “provides that federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims seeking review of state courts judgments.” Bisbee v. McCarty, 3 F. Appx. 819, 822 (10th Cir. 2001) (unpublished). 6 “Younger abstention dictates that federal courts not interfere with state court proceedings by granting equitable relief—such as injunctions of important state proceedings or declaratory judgments regarding constitutional issues in those proceedings—when such relief could adequately be sought before the state court.” Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. Of Med. Exam’rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).’ She further concluded that to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, his claim is barred by Defendant’s judicial immunity.® Plaintiff was notified of the 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).° Plaintiff filed a “Third Judicial Notice”! on April 23, 2021. This notice does not set forth any objections to the Report and Recommendation or even reference the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court concludes that no party filed a written objection to the Report and Recommendation by the specified deadline. Because of this conclusion and because the analysis and conclusion of the Magistrate Judge are sound, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Oberg is adopted in its entirety. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed April 28, 2021. BY THE COURT DavidBarlow ————<—s— United States District Judge

7 Report and Recommendation at 8-9. 8 Id. 9 Td. at 9-10. 10 Third Judicial Notice, ECF No. 31, filed April 23, 2021.