Riggs v. Crossroads Correctional Center, C.C.A. et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 9/27/2016. Mailed to Riggs. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
ROBERT D. RIGGS,

CV 10-00023-GF-BMM-JTJ

Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
WARDEN MACDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.
Pending is Plaintiff Robert Riggs’s Motion for Relief from Judgment
pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 48.) Rule
60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered before the
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
been satisfied, released or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Mr. Riggs argues that United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong did not
have jurisdiction to sit as a judge on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and therefore
the judgment is void. (Doc. 48.) Riggs cites to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) for the
1

proposition that a magistrate judge cannot rule on a motion to dismiss. But 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) provides that, “a judge may also designate a magistrate
judge to . . . to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion
excepted in subparagraph (A) . . .” That is precisely what occurred in this case.
United States Magistrate Judge Strong issued Findings and Recommendations to
grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) and those Findings and
Recommendations were adopted in full by United States Judge Sam Haddon (Doc.
35). It was only after Judge Haddon issued his Order that judgment was entered
and this matter closed.
Judgment is not void and there is no basis upon which to provide relief from
judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Riggs’ Motion for Relief
from Judgment (Doc. 48) is DENIED.
DATED 27th day of September, 2016.

2