Barnett v. Holcim

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Findings and Recommendations re 49 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 9/4/2015. (dle)

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

LEE BARNETT,

CV 14–09–BU–DWM
Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
HOLCIM, INC.,
Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Holcim, Inc.’s (“Holcim”) motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. 38.) Magistrate Judge Lynch entered findings and
recommendations on August 19, 2015, recommending the Court grant-in-part and
deny-in-part Holcim’s motion. (Doc. 49.) The Court agrees. As the parties are
familiar with the factual background, it will not be restated here.
Parties are entitled to de novo review of the specified findings or
recommendations to which they object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because neither
party filed objections, the findings and recommendations are reviewed 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
1

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of
Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Judge Lynch did not clearly err in determining that a genuine issue of
material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff Lee Barnett’s (“Barnett”) employment
was terminated for good cause. Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-904(1)(b). Nor did he
err in finding that Barnett’s claim based on an alleged violation of Holcim’s
personnel policy fails as a matter of law. § 39-2-904(1)(c).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation
(Doc. 49) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Holcim’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 38) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. It is GRANTED as
to Barnett’s claim under § 39-2-904(1)(c), but DENIED as to Barnett’s claim
under § 39-2-904(1)(b).
Dated this 4th day of September, 2015.

2