Anato et al v. Barney et al

Filing 93

ORDER: United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered 91 Findings and Recommendations in this matter on July 8, 2014. Plaintiffs filed 92 objections on July 22, 2014. 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 91 Findings and Recommendations and adopt them in full. ORDERED: 1) Defendants' 69 Motion to Substitute United States for Defendants on Tort Claims, and Dismiss or in the alternative Grant Summary Judgment is GRANTED as follows: a) Counts 1, 2, 4 6, and 7 of Plaintiffs' 53 Third Amended Complaint are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; b) Summary judgment is GR ANTED in favor of Defendants on Counts 3, 5, and 8 of Plaintiffs' 53 Third Amended Complaint. 2) Plaintiffs' 82 Motion to Deny Certification of Scope of Employment for Defendants is DENIED. The Court certifies under 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. Copy of Order mailed to Pro Se Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 8/4/2014. (SLR, )

FILED
AUG - 4 2U14
Cieri<, u.s. District Court

District Of Montana

Helena

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

GREAT FALLS DIVISION

SODJINE PAUL ANATO and
SARAH ANATO,
No. CV 12·103-GF-SEH
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

VS.

LAD BARNEY, CAROL LECHNER,
JOANNE BOWERS, MATT JONES,
JANELLE GUSTAFSON, JENNIFER
NEWBOLD, JOHN D.
GUTHMILLER, DEBORAH
CHORLTON, ANTHONY J. PREITE,
and UNKNOWN FEDERAL
WORKERS,
Defendants,!
United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on July 8, 2014.2 Plaintiffs filed objections on

1

The caption is amended to reflect Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 53 at

2

(Doc. 91.)

1.)

July 22,2014. 3 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:
L

Defendants' Motion to Substitute United States for Defendants on

Tort Claims, and Dismiss or in the alternative Grant Summary Judgment,4 is
GRANTED as follows:
a.

Counts 1,2,4,6 and 7 of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint

are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
b.

Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants on

Counts 3, 5, and 8 of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.
2.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Deny Certification of Scope of Employment for

Defendants,S is DENIED.
3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in favor of

the DEFENDANTS.

'(Doc. 92.)

4

(Doc. 69.)

5

(Doc. 82.)

-2­

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the

Court certifies under 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.
DATED this

114day of August, 2014.

,.,

~fi'I~~
~~HADDON
United States District Judge

-3­