Coulter v. Smith et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ALICIA COULTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACKSON PHILIP SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S ORDER
Case No. 2:25-cv-01090-AMA-DBP
District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Before the Court is Plaintiff Coulter’s Objection1 to Judge Pead’s Order2 denying
Plaintiff’s Motion of Case Transfer3 and Amended Motion of Case Transfer.4 For the reasons
below, Plaintiff’s Objection is overruled, Judge Pead’s decision is affirmed, and the Motions of
Case Transfer are denied.
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff Alicia Coulter initiated this action and moved for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.5 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and DUCivR 3-2(b),
Magistrate Judge Pead screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint on or before January 9, 2026, to address certain deficiencies.6
1 ECF No. 11, filed January 2, 2026.
2 ECF No. 10.
3 ECF No. 7.
4 ECF No. 8.
5 ECF Nos. 1–2.
6 ECF No. 6, filed December 4, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01090-AMA Document 14 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 4

2
On December 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Motion of Case Transfer and her Amended
Motion of Case Transfer.7 In those Motions, Plaintiff declined the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
Judge and asked that the case be sent to District Judge David Nuffer.8
On December 30, 2025, a Notice of Non-Consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
Judge under DUCivR 72-3 was docketed, and the case was randomly assigned to the
undersigned District Judge and referred to Magistrate Judge Pead pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). 9 Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motions based on the local
rules and the current procedural posture.10
On January 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
decision.11
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive matter, “[t]he district judge in
the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”12 “Under this deferential standard, the court will affirm
the ruling unless the court, exercising independent judgment, ‘is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”13
7 ECF Nos. 7–8.
8 Id.
9 ECF No. 9.
10 ECF No. 10.
11 ECF No. 11.
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
13 Amann v. Off. of Utah Att’y Gen., No. 2:18-cv-00341-JNP-DAO, 2023 WL 8283855, at *2 (D.
Utah Nov. 30, 2023) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948)).
Case 2:25-cv-01090-AMA Document 14 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 4

3
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 72-3(d)(2)(A) provides that if consent to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction is not
obtained in a case initially assigned to the magistrate judge under section 72-3(b)(1)(A) or (B), the
“Clerk’s Office will randomly assign the case to a district judge and, unless a district judge directs
otherwise, enter an automatic referral under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to the magistrate judge who
was initially assigned.”14 Plaintiff, in her Objection, demands that her case be assigned to a district
judge. This demand is moot, as her case has been already assigned to the undersigned. While
Plaintiff specifically requested District Judge Nuffer, Plaintiff is not entitled to a judge of her
choosing.15 Moreover, to the extent that, by this, Plaintiff attempts to seek review of the Magistrate
Judge’s December 4, 2025 decision ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, her objection
is untimely and therefore waived.16
Plaintiff also seems to object to this case being referred to the Magistrate Judge and claims
the Magistrate Judge is biased with regard to this matter. Plaintiff, however, has failed to set forth
anything suggesting bias exists here. While Plaintiff may disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s
ordering her to file an amended complaint, pointing out deficiencies in a complaint does not
constitute bias. Indeed, doing so is the Court’s role in screening complaints under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and DUCivR 3-2(b).
14 DUCivR 72-3(d)(2)(A).
15 See id.
16 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (a party objecting to a magistrate judge’s decision must serve and file
an objection “within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a
defect in the order not timely objected to.”); Borandi v. USAA Casulaty Ins. Co., No. 2:13-cv-
141-TS, 2015 WL 569284, at *1 (D. Utah 2015) (finding untimely objection waived).
Case 2:25-cv-01090-AMA Document 14 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 4

4
In sum, Plaintiff has not offered any basis for the Court to find that the Magistrate Judge’s
decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s Objection is thus overruled.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 11),
AFFIRMS Judge Pead’s Decision (ECF No. 10), and DENIES the Motions of Case Transfer
(ECF Nos. 7–8).
DATED this 8th day of January 2026.
Ann Marie McIff Allen
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01090-AMA Document 14 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 4