Ronald Satish Emrit v. Sabrina Carpenter, et al.

Opinion

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

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, CV 26-96-M-W WM Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPING FINDINGS Vs. AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING WITHOUT SABRINA CARPENTER, et al., PREJUDICE Defendants.

Plaintiff Emrit lodged a Complaint against the above-named Defendants on June 26, 2026. (Doc. 2), On June 26, 2026, Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, who is proceeding pro se, filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1). Judge DeSoto made Findings and a Recommendation in this matter on July 6, 2026. Plaintiff did not object and, therefore, is not entitled to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). This Court reviews the 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).

The Court finds no clear error in Judge DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 4). Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendation are ADOPTED IN FULL. Therefore, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED, without leave to amend, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4)\(B).! The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the parties of the making of this order and to enter, by separate document, a judgment of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

' While Mr. Emrit has filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 6) and a USCA Case Number has been assigned (Doc. 7), the Notice of Appeal is ineffective, and the Court retains jurisdiction. See Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir. 1993); Demorest v. Ryan, 156 F. App'x 931 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (“That report and recommendation was not a final decision. We therefore lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.... A notice of appeal filed with respect to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation therefore remains an appeal from a nonfinal order, and does not confer appellate jurisdiction in [the court of appeals]”).

DATED this 19th day of de WILLIAM W. MERCER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE