Baugus v. Werner et al
Filing
11
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. Complaint 1 DISMISSED. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 8/7/2015. Mailed to Baugus. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
FILED
AUG 0 8 . ,. ...
.J
i. (.. ".
JACKSON BRYANT BAUGUS,
Clerk, U.S. District Court
CV 15-24-BLG-SPW
Drstni~:intana
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
MARK WERNER, Attorney at Law;
ROBERT STEVENS, Jr., Attorney at
Law; MARK T. ERREBO, Attorney at
Law; BRYAN B. NORCROSS,
Attorney at Law; JAMES E.
BOLAND, Attorney at Law; JAMES
SEYKORA, Attorney at Law; and
OTHER UNNAMED JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
In this action, Plaintiff Jackson Baugus brings claims against several
attorneys. Baugus alleges that the attorneys deprived him of due process of law by
failing to prevent the seizure of his cash and property. United States Magistrate
Judge Carolyn Ostby entered Findings and Recommendations on May 14, 2015, in
which she recommended that this Court dismiss Baugus's Complaint based upon
the issue preclusion doctrine, Baugus's failure to file the Complaint within the
applicable statute of limitations, and his failure to name a proper party defendant.
After adopting Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations without
objection on June 9, 2015, this Court reopened the case and allowed Baugus until
1
July 9, 2015 to file objections. Baugus filed a document on August 3, 2015
entitled "Notice of Interlocutory Appeal." This Court construes it as an objection
to the Findings and Recommendations. The objection was filed well past the July
9 deadline because Baugus initially mailed it to the wrong place.
This Court will consider Baugus's objections timely, and he is entitled to a
de novo review to the portion of the Findings and Recommendations to which he
objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). However, Baugus does not specifically object to
any of Judge Ostby's conclusions. This Court still conducted a de novo review of
the record and concludes that Judge Ostby did not commit error.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED
IN FULL.
2. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgement
pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. 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.
5. The Clerk of Court shall have the docket reflect that this dismissal counts
as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l 915(g).
2
y/>-
DATED this
1 day of August, 2015. A
~-=-'-· f'-w~~
-'slJSANP. WATTERS
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?