Root v. Montana Department of Corrections

D. Montana

Root v. Montana Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Montana·Decided June 17, 2019·No. 1:18-cv-00164·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION F □ □□□ E JUN □□ 2019

DANIEL ROOT, Piste □□□□□□ CV 18-164-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, VS. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS CORRECTIONS dba MONTANA WOMEN’S PRISON, PAUL LAW and ALEX SHROECKENSTEIN, Defendants.

The United States Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations on May 23, 2019. (Doc. 13). The Magistrate recommended the Court grant in part and deny in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 13 at 17). 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. 13) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. Count I against Law and Schroeckenstein be dismissed with prejudice; 2, Count IJ against Law and Schroeckenstein be dismissed with prejudice; 3. Count III against Law be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice; 4. Count III against Schroeckenstein be limited to the 2017 union grievance, and the remainder dismissed without prejudice. Di Count III against the DOC be dismissed with prejudice. 6. The remainder of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied. DATED this JP of June, 2019. f- bade SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

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 BILLINGS DIVISION F □ □□□ E JUN □□ 2019

DANIEL ROOT, Piste □□□□□□ CV 18-164-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, VS. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS CORRECTIONS dba MONTANA WOMEN’S PRISON, PAUL LAW and ALEX SHROECKENSTEIN, Defendants.

The United States Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations on May 23, 2019. (Doc. 13). The Magistrate recommended the Court grant in part and deny in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 13 at 17). 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. 13) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. Count I against Law and Schroeckenstein be dismissed with prejudice; 2, Count IJ against Law and Schroeckenstein be dismissed with prejudice; 3. Count III against Law be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice; 4. Count III against Schroeckenstein be limited to the 2017 union grievance, and the remainder dismissed without prejudice. Di Count III against the DOC be dismissed with prejudice. 6. The remainder of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied. DATED this JP of June, 2019. f- bade SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Root v. Montana Department of Corrections, (D. Mont. 2019).

Pincite

Root v. Montana Department of Corrections (Root v. Montana Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related