Fraga v. Sandy City Police Department

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

EBONY SHANEA FRAGA, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATION

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-00828

SANDY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby and ANTHONY GRIFFITHS, Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg Defendants.

Before the court is the Report and Recommendation issued in the above captioned case by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg.1 The Report recommends the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated her constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments during an unlawful arrest and detention.3 On December 23, 2024, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.4 Judge Oberg issued her Report recommending dismissal on July 30, 2025.5 Judge Oberg advised Plaintiff of her right to object within fourteen days of service, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).6 Judge Oberg further cautioned that “failure to object may be considered a waiver of objections.”7

1 Dkt. 27, Report and Recommendation to Grant Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 18) and Dismiss Action without Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Report). 2 Dkt. 1, Complaint. 3 Id. 4 Dkt. 18, Motion to Dismiss. 5 Report. 6 Report at 17. 7 Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). As indicated in Judge Oberg’s Report, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) allows parties to file “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. When no objections are filed, the Supreme Court has suggested no further review by the district court is required, but nor is it precluded.8 This court reviews for clear error any report and

recommendation to which no objections have been raised.9 More than two weeks have now passed since the Report was filed and Plaintiff has not asserted any objections with the court. Accordingly, this court reviews the Report for clear error. Having carefully considered the Report, the court finds no clear error. Thus, the court ADOPTS the Report in full.10

8 See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“The [Federal Magistrate’s Act] does not on its face require any review at all, by either the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 9 See, e.g., Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made [to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation], the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”) (citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee’s Note to 1983 Amendment (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879). 10 Dkt. 27. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in the Report, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED this 15th day of August 2025. BY THE COURT:

ROBERT J. SHELBY Chief United States District Judge