Woods v. Departmen of Child and Family Services et al
Filing
42
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 36 in case 4:14-cv-00094-BMM-JTJ; ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33 in case 4:15-cv-00004-BMM-JTJ; granting (29) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in case 4:14-cv-00094-BMM-JT J; granting (23) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in case 4:15-cv-00004-BMM-JTJ. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 6/1/2016. Associated Cases: 4:14-cv-00094-BMM-JTJ, 4:15-cv-00004-BMM-JTJ (SLL, ) Modified on 6/1/2016 to reflect cpy mailed to Pltf Woods (TLO, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
CV 14-94-GF-BMM-JTJ
CV 15-04-GF-BMM-JTJ
NIKITA WOODS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IKE JESSEE, SARAH GROTBO,
JILL MILLER, MARY GETTEL, and
LORRE CLARK,
Defendants.
NIKITA WOODS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SARAH GROTBO, MARY GETTEL,
and LORI CLARK,
Defendants.
The Court has consolidated these proceedings and referred them to United
States Magistrate Judge John Johnston. Plaintiff Nikita Woods proceeds in forma
1
pauperis. Woods alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated her parental rights.
Defendant Mary Gettel filed motions to dismiss the claims against her for failure to
state a claim. (Docs. 19; 23.) Woods alleges specifically that Gettel “made up false
reports and slander plus harassment” and “racially judg[ed]” Woods. (Doc. 36 at
3.)
Judge Johnston entered Findings and Recommendations in this matter on
May 2, 2016. (Doc. 36.) Judge Johnston recommended that this Court dismiss
Woods’s claims against Defendant Gettel as she enjoys immunity from suit.
Woods timely filed objections to Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations on May 16, 2016. (Doc. 37.) The Court reviews de novo
Findings and Recommendations to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court will review for clear error the portions of the findings and
recommendations to which no party specifically objected. McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.1981). Where
a party’s objections constitute perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to
engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the
original response, however, the Court will review the applicable portions of the
findings and recommendations for clear error. Rosling v. Kirkegard, 2014 WL
693315 *3 (D. Mont. Feb. 21, 2014) (internal citations omitted).
2
Woods raises several objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
(Doc. 37.) Many objections attempt to make factual corrections that do not affect
the legal outcome. (Id.) Woods objects specifically to the Court dismissing her
claims against Gettel. (Id.) After reviewing Woods’s objections, the Court finds
that her objections lack merit and simply restate the allegations made in Response
to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 32.)
Gettel acted in her capacity as a CASA-CAN volunteer rather than a state
employee when she allegedly made certain statements, which Woods alleges
constitute defamation. Gettel’s statements still fail to constitute defamation even if
this Court were to consider Gettel a state actor. Gettel made statements during a
judicial proceeding. As such, those statements prove privileged. Mont. Code Ann.
§ 27–1–804(2). Gettel additionally enjoys immunity from suit as she was acting
within the judicial process. Balthrope v. Sacramento Co. of Health and Hum.
Services, 2011 WL 6130903, at *4 (E.D. Cal. December 8, 2011).
Woods has failed to state a claim for defamation against Defendant Gettel.
This Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations and adopts them in full.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 36) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
3
2.
Defendant Gettel’s Motions to Dismiss (14-94, Doc. 29; 15-04, Doc. 23) are
GRANTED.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2016.
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?