Newberry v. State of Montana

D. Montana

Newberry v. State of Montana

DecidedMay 11, 2020

Docket6:19-cv-00050

StatusUnknown

This text of Newberry v. State of Montana (Newberry v. State of Montana) 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

Newberry v. State of Montana, (D. Mont. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JASON NEWBERRY, CV 19–50–H–DLC–JTJ Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER

CINDY HINER, CONNIE WINNER, DR. REESE, DR. HURST, WARDEN LYNN GUYER, BILL WEDDINGTON, and REGIOND MICHAELS,

Defendants.

United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered an Order and Findings and Recommendations on April 7, 2020, recommending that the Court dismiss Defendants State of Montana and Bill Weddington from this action. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff Jason Newberry failed to timely object to the Findings and Recommendations, and so waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–53 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Wash. Mut., Inc. v. United States, 856 F.3d 711, 721 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 1 - - Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 7), the Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston’s recommendation that the State of Montana

be dismissed from this action. Although Newberry named the State when he opened this case (Doc. 1), he did not do so in his Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). An amended complaint supersedes previous versions, and the State therefore must

be dismissed. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court will also adopt Judge Johnston’s recommendation to dismiss Defendant Weddington. Judge Johnston did not clearly err in determining that Newberry failed to allege that Weddington violated a federally protected right

when he alleged only that Weddington failed to follow appropriate procedures for considering complaints under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. See Porter v. Jennings, No. 1:10-cv-1811-AW-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1434986, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

Apr. 25, 2012). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED; and

(2) Defendants State of Montana and Bill Weddington are DISMISSED from this action.

2 - - DATED this 11th day of May, 2020.

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge United States District Court

_3-

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

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

JASON NEWBERRY, CV 19–50–H–DLC–JTJ Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER

CINDY HINER, CONNIE WINNER, DR. REESE, DR. HURST, WARDEN LYNN GUYER, BILL WEDDINGTON, and REGIOND MICHAELS,

Defendants.

United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered an Order and Findings and Recommendations on April 7, 2020, recommending that the Court dismiss Defendants State of Montana and Bill Weddington from this action. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff Jason Newberry failed to timely object to the Findings and Recommendations, and so waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–53 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Wash. Mut., Inc. v. United States, 856 F.3d 711, 721 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 1 - - Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 7), the Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston’s recommendation that the State of Montana

be dismissed from this action. Although Newberry named the State when he opened this case (Doc. 1), he did not do so in his Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). An amended complaint supersedes previous versions, and the State therefore must

be dismissed. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court will also adopt Judge Johnston’s recommendation to dismiss Defendant Weddington. Judge Johnston did not clearly err in determining that Newberry failed to allege that Weddington violated a federally protected right

when he alleged only that Weddington failed to follow appropriate procedures for considering complaints under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. See Porter v. Jennings, No. 1:10-cv-1811-AW-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1434986, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

Apr. 25, 2012). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED; and

(2) Defendants State of Montana and Bill Weddington are DISMISSED from this action.

2 - - DATED this 11th day of May, 2020.

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge United States District Court

_3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Newberry v. State of Montana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newberry-v-state-of-montana-mtd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack