Ryan Lee v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; Johnson Mark, LLC; and ABC Legal Services

• Court: District Court, D. Utah
• Decided: March 11, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00540
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

RYAN LEE, ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CASE

v. Case No. 2:25-cv-00540-TC-DBP

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.; Judge Tena Campbell JOHNSON MARK, LLC; and ABC LEGAL Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead SERVICES,

Defendants.

On February 24, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead issued three Reports and Recommendations (R&Rs) recommending that the court 1) grant the Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (ECF No. 20) filed by Defendant Johnson Mark, LLC (Johnson Mark) and dismiss Plaintiff Ryan Lee’s claims against Johnson Mark without prejudice; 2) grant the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) filed by Defendant Capitol One Bank (USA), N.A. (Capitol One) and dismiss Mr. Lee’s claims against Capitol One for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 3) grant the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) filed by Defendant ABC Legal Services and dismiss Mr. Lee’s claims against ABC Legal Services for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (See ECF Nos. 38– 40.) Mr. Lee was given fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Nothing has been filed and the time for objecting has passed. The court has reviewed the matter and the R&Rs for clear error and finds that they are correct in all material respects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Comm. Notes 1983 Addition Subdivision (b) (“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.”). Accordingly, the court adopts the R&Rs (ECF No. 38—40) in their entirety. A dismissal is ordinarily entered with prejudice when the dismissal operates on the merits of the complaint. Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1282 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 2005) (“A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where a complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and granting leave to amend would be futile.”). Accordingly, the court dismisses the claims against Capitol One and ABC Legal Services with prejudice. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The court ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations issued by the Honorable Dustin B. Pead. (ECF Nos. 38-40.) 2. The court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process filed by Defendant Johnson Mark. (ECF No. 20.) The claims against Johnson Mark are dismissed without prejudice. 3. The court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Capitol One. (ECF No. 21.) The claims against Capitol One are dismissed with prejudice. 4. The court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant ABC Legal Services. (ECF No. 28.) The claims against ABC Legal Services are dismissed with prejudice. DATED this 11th day of March, 2026. BY THE COURT: Lene United States District Judge