Parke v. City of Butte et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50 in full. Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment 22 , 35 are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery 41 and Defendant's Motion to Strike 46 are DENIED as moot. An appeal ofthis decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 10/5/2011. Mailed to Parke. (TAG, ) Modified on 10/5/2011 to correct docket text (TAG, ).

FILED

2011 OCT 5 PPl 3 32

BY _ _ _ _ _ __
DEPUTY CLEHK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
CHARLES BERNARD PARKE,
Plaintiff,

No. CV-1O-42-BU-SEH

VS.

ORDER
CITY OF BUTTE, et ai.,
Defendants.

On August 1,2011, United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered his
Findings and Recommendation l in this matter. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appea\2
on August 15, 2011, and this case was stayed pending final resolution of all issues
raised in the appeal. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of

, Document No. 50

2

Document No. 53

jurisdiction on September 14,2011 3 and issued a Mandate on October 4, 2011. 4
On September 27,2011, Plaintiff moved for extension of time to file objections to
Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations/ which was granted on September
27,2011. 6 Plaintiff filed objections? to Judge Strong's Findings and
Recommendation on October 3, 2011.
The Court has fully considered Plaintiffs motion and has reviewed de novo
Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon de
novo review of the record, I find no error in Judge Strong's Findings and
Recommendation and adopt them in full.
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant's Motions for Summary JUdgment8 are GRANTED.

2.

Plaintifrs Motion for Discovery9 and Defendant's Motion to Strike 10

J

Document No. 54

4

Document No. 58

5

Document No. 55

6

Document No. 56

7

Document No. 57

g

Document Nos. 22 and

9

Document No. 4\

to

Document No. 46
2

are DENIED as moot.
3.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

4.

An appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith as

Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his claims and as such no
reasonable person could suppose that an appeal would have merit. Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(3)(A).

fiI

DATED this

:5 aayof October, 2011

~~
United States District Judge

3