United States District Court, D. Utah
J. Furse Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
N. PARRISH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Cedric Greene brought this action seeking
damages from his landlord, Defendant Floritta Gray, arising
from alleged violations of California state law. (Docket No.
3). The court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Evelyn
J. Furse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Docket
No. 7). On July 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Furse entered a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's
civil action be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and improper venue. (Docket No. 10). On July 18,
2017, Magistrate Judge Furse entered a second Report and
Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff be declared a
vexatious litigant and that the court place certain
restrictions on his ability to file any future pleadings in
this District. (Docket No. 11). Both reports informed
Plaintiff of his right to object within fourteen days of
service. On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Objection.
(Docket No. 12).
Objection, Plaintiff makes arguments regarding his convoluted
interactions with other jurisdictions and his status as an
“unrestricted free agent” for purposes of
jurisdiction and venue. (Id. at 2). The court
concludes that these arguments are ultimately undecipherable
from a legal standpoint and raise no cognizable objection to
the Magistrate Judge's reports. In essence, Plaintiff
simply repeats his grievances with other jurisdictions that
have dismissed his actions and declared him a vexatious
litigant. This does not state a viable objection to the
Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned and thorough reports.
Because Plaintiff has not identified any legal or evidentiary
issue that might call into question the reasoning or
conclusions of Judge Furse, his objections fail to preserve
any such issue for de novo review. See United States v.
One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th
Cir. 1996) (“[A] party's objection to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both
timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo
review by the district court.” (emphasis added));
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (indicating that the district court
need only conduct de novo review for any issue “that
has been properly objected to”). Where, as here, no
viable objection has been filed, the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of Judge
Furse's reports. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)
(1983 adv. comm. note). The court finds no clear error and
therefore adopts Judge Furse's reports in full. Even a
de novo review of the record, the relevant legal
authorities, and Judge Fur s e's analysis reveals no
short, the court agrees with Judge Furse that Plaintiff has
utterly failed to state a basis for subject matter
jurisdiction or proper venue in this court. Given his history
of improper and sometimes entirely baseless litigation both
in this District and in other federal courts, the court
further agrees with Judge Furse that Plaintiff should be
identified as a vexatious litigant and that restrictions on
his ability to file new cases should be imposed as outlined
in the report and recommendation.
claims are to be dismissed from this court, Plaintiff
requests in the alternative that this court transfer his
action to a Utah state court for adjudication. The court
denies this request. As Judge Furse rightly explained, no
such authority to transfer is vested in federal courts.
See McLaughlin v. Arco Polymers, Inc., 721 F.2d 426,
428-29 (3d Cir. 1983); Xie v. Univ. of Utah, No.
2:04-cv-00864-TC, 2006 WL 753003, at *2 (D. Utah Mar. 22,
careful de novo review of the relevant authorities,
Plaintiff's Objection, and the record, the court
concludes as follows:
Plaintiff's objection (Docket No. 12) is hereby
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Reports (Docket
Nos. 10, 11), the court hereby ADOPTS the
reports and accompanying recommendations in full.
recommended by the Magistrate Judge, the above-captioned
action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue.
recommended by the Magistrate Judge, the court hereby imposes
on Cedric Greene the filing restrictions outlined in the
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. (Docket No.
11, at 2). Those restrictions are as follows:
a. Any new complaints sent to the court by Mr. Greene for
filing will be collected by the Clerk of Court and sent to
the Magistrate Judge for review;
b. The Magistrate Judge will review the complaint to
determine whether it is meritorious, duplicative, or
c. If the Magistrate Judge determines that the complaint is
without merit, duplicative, or frivolous, the Magistrate
Judge will forward the complaint to the ...