Jennings v. Chapman et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Ifree Manga Jennings,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lannie Chapman, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:25-cv-774 TS DBP
Judge Ted Stewart
Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Ifree Jennings Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis.1 After screening Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and DUCivR 3-
2(b), the court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.2 In that order the court provided
that a failure to file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this matter.3 To date,
Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and the time to so under the court’s order has
passed. The undersigned therefore recommends this case be dismissed.
As noted it its prior order, Plaintiff brings this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations stemming from not seeing her daughter and not being issued a DNA test. Plaintiff’s
Complaint avers she has not seen her “daughter in years like she was supported to,”4 her
daughter is being “kept from me,”5 and Plaintiff’s character has been defamed. Based upon these
violations, Plaintiff requests five million dollars and full custody of her child.
1 ECF No. 2. This case is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B)
2 Order Temporally Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Ordering Plaintiff to File an
Amended Complaint, ECF No. 4.
3 See id. at 4.
4 Complaint at 3.
5 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00774-TS Document 6 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of
3

2
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for relief under § 1915, the court
uses the standard for analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.6 Even in construing Plaintiff’s Complaint
liberally,7 it fails to allege enough facts to “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.”8 As set forth in its prior order, Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from many fatal flaws
that have not been corrected by an amended complaint. The undersigned therefore recommends
this case be dismissed.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above and in the court’s prior order, and based upon Plaintiff’s
failure to file an amended complaint as ordered, the court
1. 	Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. 	And RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s case be Dismissed for failure to state a claim.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Copies of this Report and Recommendation are being sent to all parties, who are hereby
notified of their right to object.9 The parties must file any objection to this Report and
Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service. “[A] party’s objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de
6 Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007).
7 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
8 Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096, 1104 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547
(2007)).
9 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Case 2:25-cv-00774-TS Document 6 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of
3

3
novo review by the district court of for appellate review.”10 Failure to object may constitute a
waiver of the objections upon subsequent review.
DATED this 1 December 2025.
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
10 United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. Known As 2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Okla., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060
(10th Cir. 1996).
Case 2:25-cv-00774-TS Document 6 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of
3