Mathewson v. Core Civic Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, D. Montana
DecidedJune 10, 2020
Docket4:18-cv-00059
StatusUnknown

This text of Mathewson v. Core Civic Corporation (Mathewson v. Core Civic Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mathewson v. Core Civic Corporation, (D. Mont. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

ROBERT J. MATHEWSON, JR.,

Plaintiff, CV 18-59-GF-BMM-JTJ vs.

CORE CIVIC CORPORATION (aka ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND AMERICA), CHIEF BRENT RECOMMENDATIONS MADRID, LT. BUSHMAN- WEAVER, and KARI ALSTEAD (aka KARI KENYON)

Defendants.

United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered his Findings and Recommendations in this case on May 13, 2020. (Doc. 111.) Judge Johnston recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) be denied. Judge Johnston further recommended that Core Civic Defendants’ and 1 Defendant Kari Alstead’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 82; 86) be granted.

Neither party filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The parties have waived the right to de novo review thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Absent objection, this Court reviews findings and recommendations for clear error.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” McMillan v. United States, 112 F.3d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Reviewing

for clear error and finding none, IT IS ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) is

DENIED; 2. Defendant Alstead’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82) is GRANTED; 3. The Core Civic Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 86)

is GRANTED;

2 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment in favor of Defendants pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. DATED this 10th day of June, 2020.

of MN AX die | Wy Pia...

United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
McMillan v. United States
112 F.3d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mathewson v. Core Civic Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathewson-v-core-civic-corporation-mtd-2020.