Webb v. Weber County Government et al, No. 1:2011cv00128 - Document 588 (D. Utah 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order Overruling Objections re: 520 Order, 525 Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision, 529 Response to Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision, 531 Reply to Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision, 532 Obje ction to Magistrate Judge Decision, and 533 Response to Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each of the Objections is OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's Order is not clearly erroneous or... contrary to law. Furthermore, after having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Order de novo, including the record that was before the Magistrate Judge, the Magistrate Judge's Order is hereby AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 12/4/2018. (jwt)
Download PDF
Webb v. Weber County Government et al Doc. 588 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION DAVID WEBB, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS Plaintiff, Case No. 1:11-cv-00128 v. District Judge David Nuffer WEBER COUNTY, et al., Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse entered an order (the “Magistrate Judge’s Order”) 1 granting in part and denying in part various motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff David Webb filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order; 2 Defendants Terry Thompson, Kevin McLeod, Kevin Burton, Alton Johnson, Robert West, and Andrew Flatt also filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (collectively, the “Objections”). 3 1 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part (1) Ogden City Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 432), (2) Weber County Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 437), and (3) Weber County Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Determination of Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 462), docket no. 520, filed June 8, 2018. 2 Objections to Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part (1) Ogden City Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 432), (2) Weber County Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 437), and (3) Weber County Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Determination of Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 462) (“Weber’s Objection”), docket no. 525, filed June 15, 2018; see Response to Objection to Order Granting Costs and Attorneys’ Fees, docket no. 529, filed June 20, 2018; Pro Se Plaintiff Webb’s Reply to Response to Objections to Order Granting Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 525) Against ECF No. 529, docket no. 531, filed June 22, 2018. 3 Weber County Defendants’ Objection to Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part (1) Ogden City Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 432), (2) Weber County Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 437), and (3) Weber County Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Determination of Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 462) (“Weber County’s Objection”), docket no. 532, filed June 22, 2018; see Pro Se Plaintiff Webb’s Response [to] Weber County Defendants’ Objection to Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part (1) Ogden City Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 432), (2) Weber County Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 437), and (3) Weber County Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Determination of Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 462), docket no. 533, filed June 25, 2018. Dockets.Justia.com ORDER Upon consideration of the Objections,4 and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each of the Objections 4 is OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Order is not “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law.” 5 Furthermore, after having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order de novo, including the record that was before the Magistrate Judge, the Magistrate Judge’s Order 6 is hereby AFFIRMED. Signed December 4, 2018. BY THE COURT: David Nuffer United States District Judge 4 Webb’s Objection, supra note 2; Weber County’s Objection, supra note 3. 5 FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). 6 Magistrate Judge’s Order, supra note 1. 2