Filed: Sep. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CLARK WADDOUPS, District Judge. This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). ( See Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. (Dkt. No. 2.) Consistent with Judge Wells' treatment of the case, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will liberally c
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CLARK WADDOUPS, District Judge. This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). ( See Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. (Dkt. No. 2.) Consistent with Judge Wells' treatment of the case, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will liberally co..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CLARK WADDOUPS, District Judge.
This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (See Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 2.) Consistent with Judge Wells' treatment of the case, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will liberally construe his pleadings and hold them to a "less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotations and citation omitted).
On January 28, 2014, Judge Wells issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 3) because the court lacks jurisdiction to "intervene," as Plaintiff requests (see Complaint at 20), in Plaintiff's ongoing state juvenile court proceedings relating to his daughter under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and based on the principle in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) that a federal court may not exercise jurisdiction over a case in which there is an ongoing state action. (Report & Recommendation 3-4 [Dkt. No. 6].)
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's Objection and Amended Objection (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 9), and upon a de novo review of Judge Wells' findings and analysis, the court denies Plaintiff's objections and APPROVES AND ADOPTS Judge Wells' Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6), dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court notes, in addition, that it does not appear that Plaintiff has exhausted applicable administrative remedies as a prerequisite for bringing suit in federal court, including the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, Utah Code Ann. § 63-G-7-202 (West 2014). As a court of limited jurisdiction, the court thus does not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's case and the case must be DISMISSED and all pending motions TERMINATED as moot. The case is therefore closed.
SO ORDERED.
