Simmler v. Simmons, Case No. 2:18-CV-981-DAK-JCB

• Court: United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER SIMMLER, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS H. SIMMONS, et al., Defendants.
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:18-CV-981-DAK-JCB
• Decision Date: 30 September 2020

CHRISTOPHER SIMMLER, Plaintiff,
v.
HARRIS H. SIMMONS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-CV-981-DAK-JCB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

September 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING & AFFIRMING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Judge Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett

This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball, who then referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Paul Warner under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The case was subsequently reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett. On September 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Bennett issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the court grant Defendants' motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 63, 64, 66, 75, 77] and: (1) dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim and (2) not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

The Report and Recommendation notified Plaintiff that any objection to the Report and Recommendation was required to be filed within fourteen days of receiving it. The court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file objections until September 29, 2020, and Plaintiff filed his objections on that date.

A Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is subject to de novo review by this

Page 2

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court has reviewed the case de novo, including the briefing on the motions to dismiss, the Magistrate's Report & Recommendation, and Plaintiff's objections to the Report & Recommendation.

Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's characterization of the facts in relation to his § 1985 conspiracy claim. These facts however, do not demonstrate a meeting of the minds between the alleged participants of the conspiracy. Plaintiff identifies several different instances in which he came in contact with the different Defendants but he does not allege a plausible connection between the Defendants. Several of the facts that Plaintiff refers the court to in support of his § 1985 claim may support state law causes of action, such as trespass, but they do not allege a conspiracy.

In addition, Plaintiff incorrectly argues that a § 1985 does not require a person from a protected class and animus.. Plaintiff alleges that the statute refers to "any person," but courts are unanimous in concluding that a complaint must allege that the conspiracy was motivated by some class-based...