Hunt v. United States of America et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
BAYLEE HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
GOSHUTE RESERVATION d/b/a SACRED
CIRCLE HEALTHCARE; and
KRISTI LAWRENCE, NP,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT,
AND CLOSING CASE
No. 2:25-cv-00896-RJS-CMR
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
Plaintiff Baylee Hunt brought this suit against the United States of America,
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation d/b/a Sacred Circle Healthcare, and Kristi
Lawrence (collectively, Defendants) alleging two causes of action under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA): (1) negligence/medical malpractice, and (2) failure to obtain informed consent.1
For the reasons explained below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Hunt filed a Complaint on October 8, 2025.2 Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
was assigned as the presiding judge to the case on October 9, 2025,3 and an Order to Propose
Schedule was issued the following day.4 The case remained idle for seven months.5
1 Dkt. 2, Complaint.
2 Id.
3 See Docket.
4 Dkt. 3, Order to Propose Schedule.
5 See generally Docket.
Case 2:25-cv-00896-RJS Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 4

2
On May 29, 2026, Defendant Kristi Lawrence filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to
serve Lawrence within 90 days of filing the Complaint.6 Hunt failed to respond.7 On June 1,
2026, the court provided notice to Hunt and Lawrence of the availability of judicial settlement
conference.8 After four additional months of inaction, the case was reassigned to this court on
October 6, 2026.9
LEGAL STANDARDS
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give district courts ‘broad discretion to manage
their dockets’ within reasonable limits.”10 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, “[i]f a
defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its
own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against the defendant
or order that service be made within a specified time.”11 Under Rule 41, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to
prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the
action or any claim against it.”12 A district court may also dismiss an action in this procedural
6 See Dkt. 4, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Motion).
7 See generally Docket.
8 Dkt. 5, Docket Text Order.
9 Dkt. 7, Docket Text Order.
10 Bolongia v. Target Corp., No. 25-6205, 2026 WL 1894537, at *2 (10th Cir. July 1, 2026) (quoting Proctor &
Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 549 F.3d 842, 849 (10th Cir. 2008)).
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Case 2:25-cv-00896-RJS Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 4

3
posture sua sponte.13 Additionally, this District’s Local Rules provide that “failure to respond
timely to a motion may result in the court granting the motion without further notice.”14
ANALYSIS
Because the Motion is only applicable to claims against Lawrence,15 the court considers
Lawrence’s Motion and Hunt’s failure to serve any Defendant within 90 days of filing the
complaint separately.
With respect to the claims against Lawrence, the Federal Rules compel the court to
dismiss the action against Lawrence without prejudice because Hunt never served Lawrence with
the Complaint.16 With no opposition to the Motion, the Local Rules further support dismissal.17
As for the claims against the remaining Defendants, Hunt has not filed any proof of
service.18 This inaction amounts to a failure to comply with the Federal Rules—specifically
Rule 4’s service requirements—under Rule 41(b).19 Accordingly, the court dismisses the action
in its entirety.20
13 Davis v. Miller, 571 F.3d 1058, 1060 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)) (citation modified); see also
Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n. 3 (10th Cir.2003) (“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the
defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte
for a plaintiff's failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure or court’s orders.”); Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cnty. Just. Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Rule 41(b) specifically
authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failing to comply with any aspect of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.”).
14 DUCivR 7-1(f).
15 Lawrence specifies she “takes no position regarding dismissal as to the United States of America and file [sic] this
Motion solely on her own behalf.” Motion ¶ 7.
16 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
17 DUCivR 7-1(f).
18 See Complaint; see generally Docket.
19 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 4(m).
20 See supra n.13 (collecting cases supporting sua sponte dismissal).
Case 2:25-cv-00896-RJS Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 4

4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion21 is GRANTED and the court dismisses the
action in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of October 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States Chief District Judge
21 Dkt. 4.
Case 2:25-cv-00896-RJS Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 4