Bullock v. Gallatin County Detention Center et al
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 in full. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 12/12/2017. Mailed to Bullock (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
RUSSELL WAYNE BULLOCK,
CV-16-45-BU-BMM-JCL
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
GALLATIN COUNTY; GALLATIN
COUNTY DETENTION CENTER;
GALLATIN COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER CORRECTIONAL
OFFICERS, SGT., and
ADMINISTRATORS; GALLATIN
COUNTY SHERIFF; MAYOR; CITY
COUNCIL; BOZEMAN CITY FIRE
DEPARTMENT; BENEFIS
SPECTRUM MEDICAL; and
AMERICAN AMBULANCE CO.;
Defendants.
1
Plaintiff Russell Bullock, appearing pro se, proceeds in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court determined Bullock’s allegations in his
initial Complaint were insufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. (Doc. 15 at 2.) The Court granted Bullock the opportunity to file an
amended pleading to cure the deficiencies. Id. Bullock filed his Amended
Complaint on July 17, 2017. (Doc. 14.) Based on Bullock’s initial and Amended
Complaint, the Court construes the allegations as arising from events that occurred
while Bullock was incarcerated at the Gallatin County Detention Center in
Bozeman, Montana. (Doc. 15 at 2.) The Court must conduct a preliminary
screening of the allegations set forth in the pleading as required under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) requires dismissal of the action if the allegations
fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
When a party makes no objections, the Court need not review de novo the
proposed Findings and Recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52
(1986). This Court will review Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations,
however, for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.,
Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Judge Lynch determined that Bullock’s Amended Complaint continues with
only general allegations. (Doc. 15 at 2.) Judge Lynch further determined that
2
Bullock’s Amended Complaint does not describe what each Defendant did, or
failed to do, with respect to obtaining or providing medical treatment for Bullock
as necessary to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim. Id. at 3. Judge Lynch
determined that Bullock’s Amended Complaint does not identify any supervisor or
their wrongdoing to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 4. The Amended
Complaint also fails to include any facts demonstrating that Gallatin County or any
“private actor” is liable under § 1983. Id. Judge Lynch concluded that Bullock’s
Amended Complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. Id.
Judge Lynch further concluded Bullock failed to cure the deficiencies in his
Amended Complaint, warranting a dismissal without leave to amend. Id. at 5.
The Court has reviewed Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations for
clear error. The Court finds no error in Judge Lynch’s Findings and
Recommendations, and adopts them in full.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 15), are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this matter and enter judgment
in favor of Defendants pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS ORDERED that the docket shall 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. No reasonable person
3
could suppose an appeal would have merit. The record makes plain the Amended
Complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall reflect that this
dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Bullock failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
DATED this 12th day of December, 2017.
4
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?