Anato et al v. Barney et al

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING 42 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Any appeal from the portion of the Court's 40 Order of June 27, 2013 denying Plaintiffs' 25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction would not be taken in good faith because the motion is so lacking in merit that no reasonable jurist could disagree with the denial of that motion. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3). 2) Any appeal from the portion of the Court's 40 Order of June 27, 2013, dismissing certain Counts of the First Amended Complaint, would not be taken in good faith because the claims asserted in those Counts are so defective that no reasonable jurist could disagree with dismissal, and the appeal would be premature because the dismissal is not a final, appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. 1291.... Copy of Order mailed to Pro Se Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 9/12/2013. (SLR, )

FILED
SEP 12 2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Clar1<. u.s. District Court
District Of Montana
Helena

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
SODJINE PAUL ANATO and
SARAH ANATO ,
No. CV 12-103-GF-SEH

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ORDER

USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT,

LAD BARNEY, CAROL LECHNER,

JOANNE BOWERS, MATT JONES,

Defendant.
On June 27,2013, this Court adopted United States Magistrate Judge Keith
Strong's Findings and Recommendations in this matter, and ordered, inter alia,
that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied, and that certain
Counts of the First Amended Complaint be dismissed.! On July 15,2013,
Plaintiffs filed documents suggesting an intent to appeal the Court's Order,2
however no appeal has been filed. On August 5, 2013, Judge Strong entered

I

Document No. 40

2 Document

No. 41

further Findings and Recommendations.' He recommended that this Court certify,
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal at this
stage of the proceedings would not be in good faith. Plaintiffs filed objections on
August 22, 2013. 4 The Court reviews de novo findings and recommendations to
which objections are made. 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(1).
Upon de novo review of the record, I find no error in Judge Strong's
Findings and Recommendations and adopt them in fulL
ORDERED:
1.

Any appeal from the portion of the Court's Order ofJune 27, 2013,

denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction would not be taken in good
faith because the motion is so lacking in merit that no reasonable jurist could
disagree with the denial of that motion. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).
2.

Any appeal from the portion of the Court's Order ofJune 27, 2013,

dismissing certain Counts of the First Amended Complaint would not be taken in
good faith because the claims asserted in those Counts are so defective that no
reasonable jurist could disagree with dismissal, and the appeal would be premature
because the dismissal is not a final, appealable decision under 28 U.S.c. § 1291.

3

Docwnent No. 42

, Docwnent No. 43

-2­

See Cunningham v. Hamilton County, Ohio, 527 U.S. 198,204 (1999) (a final

order typically ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to
do but execute the jUdgme~
DATED this

I~

day of September, 2013.

~,~J!.A~

'iME.HADDON

United States District Judge

-3­