United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO  MEMORANDUM
Nuffer District Judge
David Zivkovic purportedly objects to the Memorandum
Decision which denied Zivkovic's Motion for
Official Service of Process (Motion) and informed Zivkovic that
there was no need for a motion because “the court will
screen [his] complaint and determine whether it should be
served on the named defendants.” In his lodged
email, Zivkovic states numerous objections.
Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires parties to file any
objections to a magistrate decision within 14 days.
Warner entered his decision on February 1, 2017. Zivkovic
emailed his response February 22, 2017. Zivkovic's
emailed objections are late and should not be considered.
addition, Zivkovic's “objections” were not
filed. Email is not a proper method to present issues for
even if considered, Zivkovic's objections are meritless.
Zivkovic argues that because he had not consented to a
magistrate under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Magistrate Judge
Warner improperly decided the Motion. However, under General
Order 11-001,  magistrate judges are included in civil
case assignments when the civil case is opened: “Cases
so assigned shall be deemed to be assigned to the Chief Judge
and referred to the magistrate judge for the exercise of all
authority under 28 U.S.C. 636(b).” And, contrary to
Zivkovic's argument, 28 U.S.C. 636(b) applies to both
civil and criminal cases.
Zivkovic argues that Judge Warner is not authorized by 28
U.S.C. § 1915 to screen his complaint prior to service
because Zivkovic is not a prisoner.
U.S.C. § 1915 governs all cases where a plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a cause of action filed
IFP at any time the court determines the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or if the litigant seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such a claim.
1915(e)(2)(B) screening is not limited to prisoner
litigation. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) directs the court to screen
any case where the plaintiff is proceeding IFP.Although §
1915(e)(2)(B) screening is not required before granting IFP
status or ordering service on the defendant, the Tenth
Circuit has encouraged district courts to screen IFP cases as
soon as practical.
Judge Warner is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to
screen Zivkovic's complaint prior to effecting service.
HEREBY ORDERED that lodged email ...