Schoppe v. State of Utah, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
JOHN H. SCHOPPE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH; WORKFORCE
SERVICES; MEDICAID; USA; SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION;
MEDICARE; INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-4111
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00082-DB)
(D. Utah)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
**

_________________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant John H. Schoppe filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah alleging his constitutional rights have been
violated by “unlawful violation of the separation of powers through administrative
agencies powers” and “bureaucratic abuses.” For these alleged violations, he sought

*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.

**
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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

November 24, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-4111 Document: 010110442458 Date Filed: 11/24/2020 Page: 1

2

$200,000,000 in damages and injunctive relief. The district court referred the action
to Magistrate Judge Bennett pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge
Bennett issued a report and recommendation concluding that Plaintiff’s complaint is
legally frivolous and should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
After overruling Plaintiff’s objections, the district court adopted the report and
recommendation in its entirety and dismissed this action with prejudice.
Plaintiff now appeals the final judgment, asserting the district court erred in
dismissing his complaint. But Plaintiff fails to present any legally or factually adequate
basis for reversal. In a well-reasoned report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Bennett explained why—even under a liberal interpretation—Plaintiff’s allegations
fail to support any viable claim for relief. The district court reviewed Plaintiff’s
objections de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and wholly adopted the
report and recommendation. For the purpose of resolving this appeal, we have
thoroughly reviewed the record and Plaintiff’s appellate brief. We discern no
reversible error. Where the district court correctly analyzes an issue, we see no useful
purpose in writing at length. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
we AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Bennett’s
report and recommendation and the district court’s order adopting the same.
Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-4111 Document: 010110442458 Date Filed: 11/24/2020 Page: 2