United States District Court, D. Utah
M. Warner Chief Magistrate Judge
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION AND DIMISSING THE CASE
J. SHELBY CHIEF JUDGE
in forma pauperis,  Plaintiff Abraham Portnov
initiated this action on April 17, 2018. The undersigned
referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On August 9,
2019, Judge Warner issued a Report and
Recommendation. Judge Warner recommends dismissing the
action without prejudice for improper venue. Portnov timely
objected to Judge Warner's Report and Recommendation,
the court reviews Judge Warner's Report and
Recommendation de novo. For the reasons explained below,
Portnov's Objection is OVERRULED.
raises three objections to Judge Warner's Report and
Recommendation. First, Portnov claims venue is proper in
Utah. Portnov's Complaint names as
Defendants the United States Department of Justice and
several of its employees. Venue is improper in the
District of Utah because the named defendants do not reside
here, none of the defendants are subject to this court's
personal jurisdiction, and Portnov does not allege any
actions or omissions in Utah.And even though this case does
not involve real property, Portnov does not reside
here. Venue is therefore improper.
Portnov argues this court has subject-matter jurisdiction,
and should not dismiss the action for improper
venue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),
Portnov is proceeding in forma
pauperis. “[U]nder § 1915, the district
court may consider personal jurisdiction and venue sua
sponte only when the defense is obvious from the face of
the complaint and no further factual record is required to be
developed.” As explained above, venue is
improper.Furthermore, no allegation in the
Complaint would support venue in the District of Utah, and
Portnov makes no effort to suggest that he could establish
venue here. It is therefore appropriate for this court to
dismiss Portnov's action for improper
Portnov asserts his claims have merit. Under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), this court “shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted.” After carefully reviewing Portnov's
Complaint, the court concludes Portnov has failed to
adequately allege “sufficient factual matter . . . to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Portnov's conclusory allegations
will not do.Dismissal is therefore
foregoing reasons, Portnov's Objection to Judge
Warner's Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED.
The action is dismissed without prejudice, and Portnov's
pending motions are MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed
to close the case.
 Dkt. 2.
 Dkt. 3.
 Dkt. 7.