Webb v. Kier Property Management & Real Estate, 671 F. App'x 726

Plaintiff David Webb filed a 140‑page civil rights complaint in the District of Utah naming Ogden City and numerous individuals.
The district court referred the complaint to a magistrate judge for initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Webb’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), concluding Webb’s alleged facts did not state a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
The magistrate noted any remaining state‑law claims would be dismissed without prejudice under § 1367(c)(2) if no federal claims remained against state actors.
The district court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the complaint; Webb appealed.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed, rejecting Webb’s recusal claim and noting this suit was similar to other previously dismissed suits by Webb.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Webb’s complaint states a constitutional (Fourteenth Amendment) violation	Webb contended defendants’ conduct violated his constitutional rights (various alleged harms)	Defendants argued the alleged behavior did not constitute a Fourteenth Amendment violation and was insufficient under § 1915(e) screening	Court held the complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim and affirmed dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Whether the magistrate judge should have recused herself	Webb argued recusal was required	Defendants argued adverse rulings alone do not justify recusal	Court held recusal was not warranted; adverse rulings alone are insufficient (citing Willner)
Whether the district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state‑law claims	Webb implicitly sought to proceed on state claims	Defendants argued dismissal of federal claims removes basis to retain supplemental jurisdiction	Court accepted magistrate’s view that state claims would be dismissed without prejudice under § 1367(c)(2)
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice	Webb sought to proceed further	Defendants supported dismissal for failure to state a federal claim	Court affirmed dismissal of federal claims with prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (state claims would be dismissed without prejudice)

Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir. 2003) (explaining de novo review of dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii))
Willner v. Univ. of Kan., 848 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1988) (adverse legal rulings alone do not require judicial recusal)