Maughan v. Mazza

D. Utah

Maughan v. Mazza

DecidedNovember 4, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-00673

StatusUnknown

This text of Maughan v. Mazza (Maughan v. Mazza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maughan v. Mazza, (D. Utah 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

RYAN MAUGHAN, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATION

v. Case No. 2:21-cv-00673-JNP-JCB SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, JANTZEN MAZZA, J. MORTENSEN, W. District Judge Jill N. Parrish COTNER, and C. JEPPSON,

Defendants.

The magistrate judge assigned to this case issued a Report and Recommendation that the court dismiss plaintiff Ryan Maughan’s action. ECF No. 61. First, the Report and Recommendation notes that the action should be dismissed under DUCivR 7-1(f) because Maughan failed to provide any response to either the motion to dismiss filed by the officer defendants, ECF No. 53, or the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Salt Lake City Corporation, ECF No. 59. Second, the Report and Recommendation reasons that the motions to dismiss should be granted on the merits. Mazza failed to file a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. Because Mazza did not objected to the Report and Recommendation, any argument that it was in error has been waived. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The court will decline to apply the waiver rule only if “the interests of justice so dictate.” Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). In determining whether the interests of justice require an exception to the waiver rule, the Tenth Circuit has “considered factors such as ‘a pro se litigant’s effort to comply, the force and plausibility of the explanation for his failure to comply, and the importance of the issues raised.’” Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1238 (10th Cir. 2008). In this case, there is no indication that the interests of justice require it to deviate from the waiver rule. Thus, the court ADOPTS IN FULL the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 61.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the officer defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 53, and GRANTS Salt Lake City’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 59. The court dismisses this action with prejudice. DATED November 4, 2022. BY THE COURT

______________________________ Jill N. Parrish United States District Court Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

RYAN MAUGHAN, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATION

v. Case No. 2:21-cv-00673-JNP-JCB SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, JANTZEN MAZZA, J. MORTENSEN, W. District Judge Jill N. Parrish COTNER, and C. JEPPSON,

Defendants.

The magistrate judge assigned to this case issued a Report and Recommendation that the court dismiss plaintiff Ryan Maughan’s action. ECF No. 61. First, the Report and Recommendation notes that the action should be dismissed under DUCivR 7-1(f) because Maughan failed to provide any response to either the motion to dismiss filed by the officer defendants, ECF No. 53, or the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Salt Lake City Corporation, ECF No. 59. Second, the Report and Recommendation reasons that the motions to dismiss should be granted on the merits. Mazza failed to file a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. Because Mazza did not objected to the Report and Recommendation, any argument that it was in error has been waived. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The court will decline to apply the waiver rule only if “the interests of justice so dictate.” Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). In determining whether the interests of justice require an exception to the waiver rule, the Tenth Circuit has “considered factors such as ‘a pro se litigant’s effort to comply, the force and plausibility of the explanation for his failure to comply, and the importance of the issues raised.’” Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1238 (10th Cir. 2008). In this case, there is no indication that the interests of justice require it to deviate from the waiver rule. Thus, the court ADOPTS IN FULL the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 61.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the officer defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 53, and GRANTS Salt Lake City’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 59. The court dismisses this action with prejudice. DATED November 4, 2022. BY THE COURT

______________________________ Jill N. Parrish United States District Court Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Maughan v. Mazza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maughan-v-mazza-utd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack