Armstrong v. Tescher et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 2 Complaint IFP/Prisoner filed by Muiria Armstrong. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 5/8/2014. (APP, ) Copy mailed to Armstrong

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

FILED
MAY 08 2014
c~, U.s Dis .

,:)ct.

O/strict Of
COUrt
MiSSoulantane

CV 14-24-BU-DWM-JCL

MUIRIA ARMSTRONG and A.A.,
biological daughter and minor child,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

vs.
JOLYNE TESCHER, RHONDA
BELGARDE, CAROLYN DAVIS,
KATHLEENCASHELL, RACHEL
BRANDEN, STACY DWYER,
MARK VUCUROVICH, KIM
POLICH, BRAD NEWMAN, MARY
KAY STARIN, SUSAN DAY,
JENNIFER DOWNING, DAN
DOWNING, TIM FOX, RICHARD
OPPER, EILEEN JOYCE, JAMES
REAVIS, and LORI MALONEY,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the proposed Findings and
Recommendations entered by United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch,
(Doc. 3), regarding Plaintiff Muiria Armstrong's Complaint, in which she seeks
relief with respect to the custody of her minor daughter, A.A., (Doc. 2). Because
Armstrong is proceeding in forma pauperis, upon filing, this matter was referred

-1­

to Judge Lynch. See L.R. 72.2(a). Judge Lynch conducted a pre screening as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and filed his Findings and Recommendations
on April 10,2014. (Doc. 3 at 8.) Armstrong filed a responsive document on April
30,2014. (Doc. 6 at 14.) Although untimely,! Armstrong's response will now be
considered on review of Judge Lynch's report.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Findings and
Recommendations to which Armstrong objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1).
Otherwise, 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). Armstrong filed a document entitled "Objection to dismiss RQST
for Counsel" on April 30, 2014. (Doc. 6.) Although Armstrong labeled this
document an "Objection," the document simply reasserts her grievances and fails
to directly rejoin any of the analysis or conclusions presented in Judge Lynch's
Findings and Recommendations. In the absence of any specific objections, the
Court reviews Judge Lynch's determination that the Court must abstain under

1 "Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file
written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of
court." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because the statutory objections period states that a party may
file objections within a specified time after service of the findings and recommendations, and
service of the Findings and Recommendations at issue here was made by mail and electronic
means, three days are added after the period would otherwise expire. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Accordingly, written objections to Judge Lynch's proposed Findings and Recommendations were
due April 27, 2014.

-2­

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,43-45 (1971), for clear error. Finding none, the
Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations in-full.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations,
(Doc. 3), are ADOPTED IN-FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter by separate
document a judgment of dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58,
and close this case.
DATED

thiS~ay of May, 2014.

-3­