Kush v. Vickers

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

REMY KUSH, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-00564-RJS-JCB

EVAN J. VICKERS, et al., Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby

Defendants. Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett

Before the court is the Report and Recommendation issued in the above captioned case by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on July 30, 2025.1 The Report recommends the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2 In the Report, Judge Bennett notified Plaintiff of his right under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) to file any objections to the Report within 14 days of being served with a copy of it.3 Judge Bennett cautioned that “[f]ailure to object may constitute waiver of objections upon subsequent review.”4 Objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court.5 The court reviews for clear error any report and recommendation to which no timely or specific objections have been

1 Dkt. 14, Report and Recommendation. 2 Id. at 1–2. 3 Id. at 9. 4 Id. 5 United States v. 2121 East 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). raised.° Here, the time for filing an objection has passed, and Plaintiff has made no objection to the Report. Accordingly, this court reviews the Report for clear error. Having carefully considered the Report, the court determines Judge Bennett’s analysis and conclusions are sound. The court finds no clear error and ADOPTS the Report in full. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint and directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. SO ORDERED this 15th day of August 2025. BY THE COURT:

ROBERT F< United Sta@@s Chief District Judge

6 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.”) (citation omitted).