Daphne A. Oberg

United States District Court for the District of Utah magistrate 4 signed orders read

How Judge Oberg decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On a developed record she will recommend granting plaintiff's relief, including post-judgment charging orders, where the defendant defaults or fails to properly contest the supporting documentation.

“Judge Oberg subsequently issued a Report and Recommendations on June 13, 2024, recommending Plaintiff's Application [for a charging order] be granted. ... Judge Oberg's Report is ADOPTED and Defendant's Application is GRANTED.”

Procedural preferences

Enforces threshold requirements firmly on pro se and IFP litigants: screens complaints under 1915(e)(2)(B) (dismissing frivolous / Rule-8-noncompliant pleadings, with prejudice where warranted), conditions IFP on fee payment, and recommends failure-to-prosecute dismissals.

“His Amended Complaint ... is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Screening dismissal
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Summary judgment
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Ifp
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Involuntary dismissal
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Charging order
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Sorenson v. United States
2:20-cv-00335-DAK-DAO · 2021-02-02
Screening dismissal (plaintiff) Granted

“the court fully agrees with the analysis in Magistrate Judge Oberg's Report and Recommendation. ... His Amended Complaint, therefore, is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). ... the court ... dismisses Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 6] with prejudice”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied because he fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 56 ... and he fails to show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on any of his claims. ... denies his motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 207].”

Leshinsky v. Utah Office Recovery Services
2:23-cv-00534-TC-DAO · 2023-10-20
Ifp (plaintiff) Denied

“The court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 6) and DENIES Mr. Leshinsky's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). The court gives Mr. Leshinsky thirty days to pay the filing fee, or the court will dismiss this case without prejudice.”

Ramirez-Medina v. Brown
2:23-cv-00097-TC-DAO · 2023-10-02
Involuntary dismissal (defendant) Granted

“the court ADOPTS Judge Oberg's R&R, GRANTS Mr. Ramirez-Medina's motion to dismiss, and directs the Clerk of Court to dismiss this action without prejudice.”

Hutchinson v. Kamauu
2:20-cv-00796-RJS-DAO · 2024-08-29
Charging order (plaintiff) Granted

“Defendants' Objection to Judge Oberg's Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED. Judge Oberg's Report is ADOPTED and Defendant's Application is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Salt Lake City magistrate (since 2020-05-01), described by the court as carrying a HEAVY civil caseload. Her work spans pro se / IFP screening, post-judgment collection, civil-rights and contract matters referred for R&R, plus directly-assigned/consent civil matters. Referral merits R&Rs are reviewed by the district judges (reasoning layer). Composition only; not a grant rate.