Adams v. Gissell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

DIRK S. ADAMS, CV 20-135-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, Vs. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS MIDORI E. GISSELL, TRENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOHNSON, LARRY JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.

The United States Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 15) on July 1, 2021. (Doc. 23). The Magistrate recommended that the motion be denied because Plaintiff Adams met his burden to demonstrate diversity between the parties. (Doc. 15 at 11). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation. No objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court reviews the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendation, this Court does not find that the Magistrate committed clear error. IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is DENIED.

yA DATED this /% day of July, 2021.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge