Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02242/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02242-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Justin Sloan Medved
Plaintiff
Michael Patrick Medved
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Justin Sloan Medved, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Patrick Medved, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-02242-PHX-DKD

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 

David K. Duncan, recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with 

prejudice. (Doc. 6, Report and Recommendation (“R & R”).) Plaintiff filed his Objection 

to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 7, Obj. to R & R.) In his Report and 

Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s claims must be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (R & R at 3.) The Magistrate Judge also noted: 

[T]he substance of this Complaint has already been addressed by two other judges of this Court. District Judge Tuchi dismissed with prejudice a complaint which is nearly identical to the Complaint in this case. See CV14-2005-PHX-JJT. District Judge Snow then dismissed a nearly identical Complaint on the same grounds. See CV-14-2076-PHX-GMS. 

 . . . . 

As Judge Tuchi pointed out in his Order, Plaintiff’s claims and the disputes he describes are not among those matters which are permitted to be heard in federal court. Any such claims may only be entertained in a court of general jurisdiction such as a state trial court. 

(Id. at 1-3.) 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-DKD Document 8 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over his claims. (See Obj. to R & R.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case and has fully considered 

the Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation fail to 

present any evidence to the Court to demonstrate factual error in the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings and fail to cite any law or legal authority to show legal error in the Magistrate 

Judge’s legal analysis. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this Court lacks 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 7). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court (Doc. 6).

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 18th day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-DKD Document 8 Filed 11/19/14 Page 2 of 2