James P. Story et al. v. Angela Pavao et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah overruled the plaintiffs’ objection and adopted in part the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice based on insufficient service and failure to state plausible federal claims, denied the motions for injunctive relief and leave to amend as presented, and granted plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. A timely and fairly specific objection requires de novo review of the challenged portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, while unobjected-to portions are reviewed for clear error.
2. Defendants who were not properly served within 90 days after the complaint was filed must be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) when the plaintiff fails to demonstrate compliance after notice and an opportunity to do so.
3. The complaint failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because it did not include sufficient factual allegations to make any asserted federal cause of action plausible.
4. Dismissal of the unidentified Doe defendants was appropriate because plaintiffs failed to identify them after nearly ten months and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for suit against persons solely under fictitious names.
5. Leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile because the proposed amended complaint would still fail to state a plausible claim, although the court granted plaintiffs one final opportunity to file a compliant amended complaint.
6. Plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief because the complaint had been dismissed and, independently, plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should conduct de novo review of the objected-to portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
2. Whether defendants who were not properly served within 90 days should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
3. Whether the complaint stated plausible federal claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
4. Whether plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their complaint.
5. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Disposition

dismissed