Hawkins v. Salt Lake County et al, No. 2:2019cv00442 - Document 99 (D. Utah 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER adopting in full 98 Report and Recommendation: 1) The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 98 ) is ADOPTED IN FULL. 2) Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED, having been construed as a Mot ion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 82 ). Plaintiff shall file his Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order, restating only Count V of his First Amended Complaint against the remaining Defendants. 3) Plaintiffs Truck Finance Services and In tegrity Financial Group and Defendants Von Thometz Knudson, David Michael Davidson, and Carla Camelo are DISMISSED from this action. 4) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 84 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 2/15/24. (dle)

Download PDF
Hawkins v. Salt Lake County et al Doc. 99 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH DALLIN HAWKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN FULL v. SALT LAKE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:19-CV-00442-JNP-CMR District Judge Jill N. Parrish Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero In October 2019, Plaintiff amended his complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). ECF No. 15. By his present motion, Plaintiff now seeks dismissal of certain parties and claims from his Amended Complaint. ECF No. 82. Defendants Salt Lake County and Officer Angie Oldham (“Defendants”) subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Heck doctrine, qualified immunity, and Monell, and that the Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 84. On December 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero issued a Report and Recommendation addressing both pending motions. ECF No. 98. Judge Romero recommends that the court liberally construe and grant Plaintiff’s motion to partially dismiss his own First Amended Complaint as a motion for leave to amend. Id. at 4–5. Judge Romero further recommends that the court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as moot. Id. The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that a failure to file a timely objection to the recommendation may constitute a waiver of any objections upon subsequent review. Id. at 5. No party objected to the Report and Recommendation and any argument that it was in error has Dockets.Justia.com thus 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); see also Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1238 (10th Cir. 2008) (listing factors to apply in determining whether the interests of justice require an exception to the waiver rule). The court does not find an exception to the waiver rule required in the interests of justice. Thus, having reviewed Judge Romero’s recommendation, the court concludes it is not clearly erroneous and ADOPTS IN FULL the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 98). Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 98) is ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, having been construed as a Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 82). Plaintiff shall file his Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order, restating only Count V of his First Amended Complaint against the remaining Defendants. 3. Plaintiffs Truck Finance Services and Integrity Financial Group and Defendants Von Thometz Knudson, David Michael Davidson, and Carla Camelo are DISMISSED from this action. 4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 84) is DENIED as moot. Signed February 15, 2024 BY THE COURT ______________________________ Jill N. Parrish United States District Court 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.