Huggler v. State of Montana

Opinion

FILE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG - 6 2019 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA Clerk, US District Cour BILLINGS DIVISION District Of Montana

EDWARD H. HUGGLER, CV 19-00039-BLG-SPW-TJC Plaintiff, vs. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS STATE OF MONTANA DOJ as AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUPERVISING AGENCY, Defendant.

The United States Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations on July 16, 2019. (Doc. 12.) The Magistrate recommended the Court deny Huggler’s Supplement (Doc. 4), which the Magistrate construed as a motion for injunctive relief. 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. Huggler filed several notices with the Court after the Magistrate filed his findings and recommendations (Docs. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17), but none of the notices contained objections to the Magistrate’s recommendation. 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. On August 5, 2019, Mr. Huggler filed a “Notice of Appeal of Rulings and Findings” (Doc. 18) where he objected to the Magistrate’s denial of his request for legal assistance (Doc. 12 at 19). The Court may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Court may reconsider a pretrial matter determined by a magistrate judge when a party shows the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Jd. Mr. Huggler has not shown the Magistrate’s denial of his request for legal assistance is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendation entered by the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 12) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: 1. Mr. Huggler’s Supplement (Doc. 4), construed as a motion for injunctive relief, is DENIED.

2. Mr. Huggler’s notice asking this Court to reconsider the Magistrate’s denial of his request for legal assistance (Doc. 18) is DENIED. DATED this La of August, 2018.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge