FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 20, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
DAVID WEBB,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 16-4174
(D.C. No.1:16-CV-00001-DS)
KIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (D. Utah)
AND REAL ESTATE; SUZANNAH
KNOWLDEN; CHRISTOPHER
BISHOP, Ogden City Master Police
Officer; OGDEN CITY
CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
.
David Webb appeals from an order of the United States District Court for
the District of Utah dismissing Webb’s civil rights complaint pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.
Webb filed a 140-page complaint 1 in the District of Utah, naming as
defendants Ogden City, a private entity, and numerous individuals. The matter
was referred to a magistrate judge for initial screening and preparation of a report
and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
recommended that the federal claims set out in Webb’s complaint be dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 2 In particular,
the magistrate judge noted that none of the behavior identified by Webb amounted
to a violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Upon de novo
review, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and dismissed Webb’s complaint.
1
In an order filed May 13, 2016, the district court recognized that Webb had
filed two separate documents that he sought to have considered together as one
complaint. Accordingly, the district court considered Webb’s filings in docket
entries Nos. 7 and 9 as Webb’s operative complaint.
2
In so recommending, the magistrate judge recognized the result would
amount to a dismissal without prejudice of any attendant state law claims. See
Report & Recommendation at 4-5 & 5 n.17 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) for the
following proposition: “If the case cannot move forward against a state actor, the
Court will not retain supplemental jurisdiction over the other parties and other
claims.”).
-2-
This court reviews de novo the district court’s dismissal of Webb’s
complaint. Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333, 1335 (10th Cir. 2003) (conducting
de novo review of dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Upon de novo
review, we affirm the district court for substantially those reasons set out in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dated May 19, 2016, and the
district court’s order, dated September 19, 2016. In so doing, we note Webb’s
complaint fits comfortably within a pattern of quite similar lawsuits and that this
court has consistently concluded such suits do not state a constitutional violation.
See, e.g., Webb v. Caldwell, No. 16-4142, 2016 WL 6211802 at *1 (10th Cir. Oct.
25, 2016) (affirming dismissal of suit by Webb complaining about the failure of
various government officials to take action against a person who threatened
Webb); Webb v. Swensen, No. 16–4103, 2016 WL 5724247 at *1 (10th Cir. Oct.
3, 2016) (same). We further note that Webb’s assertion the magistrate judge
should have recused herself is utterly meritless. A recusal motion cannot be
based exclusively on adverse legal rulings. Willner v. Univ. of Kan., 848 F.2d
1023, 1028 (10th Cir. 1988).
For those reasons set out above, the order of the district court dismissing
Webb’s complaint is hereby AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-