Roybal v. State of Utah et al, No. 2:2018cv00471 - Document 8 (D. Utah 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-adopting Report and Recommendations re 7 Report and Recommendations that Mr. Roybal's complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Because Mr. Roybal has not met the minimum pleading requirements and did not appear at the status conference set by Magistrate Judge Furse to address the deficiencies in the Complaint, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 9/20/18. (jmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Roybal v. State of Utah et al Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH RUBEN ROYBAL, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER v. STATE OF UTAH; MELANIE HOOTEN; JOLANDA REYES; TIMOTHY JAMES TRUJILLO, JR.; POLLACK FAMILY, Case No. 2:18-cv-471-CW District Judge Clark Waddoups Defendants. Plaintiff Ruben Roybal, proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se, brings this civil rights action against several defendants who he alleges were employed by the State of Utah and provided medical services resulting in billions of dollars of damages. (Complaint, ECF No. 3.) This action was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 4.) The matter is now before the court on a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Furse, dated August 27, 2018, in which she recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) The Report and Recommendation is incorporated by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Twenty-four days have passed since Magistrate Judge Furse entered her recommendation, and it remains unopposed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (permitting a party, within fourteen days of being served, to file written objections). Therefore, the court “may review [her] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, Dockets.Justia.com 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). Because Mr. Roybal is proceeding pro se, the court must liberally construe his pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), but it cannot advocate for him, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). After careful review of the record, applying a de novo standard of review, the court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Furse’s recommendation that Mr. Roybal’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The Complaint does not set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Mr. Roybal] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. It is unclear on the face of the Complaint what Mr. Roybal alleges happened, what Mr. Roybal alleges his injuries are, or what Mr. Roybal alleges each Defendant did to contribute to those injuries. Because Mr. Roybal has not met the minimum pleading requirements and did not appear at the status conference set by Magistrate Judge Furse to address the deficiencies in the Complaint, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. DATED this 20th day of September, 2018. BY THE COURT: Clark Waddoups United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
