Lietzke v. City of Montgomery et al
Filing
7
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's 2 complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judge Strong's 4 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL. The Court certifies pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules o f Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 2/4/2015. (SLL, ) Modified on 2/4/2015 to add language from the Order, and to reflect that the Order has been mailed to the Plaintiff. (SLR, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
CV 14-96-GF-BMM
BILL LIETZKE,
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECCOMENDATIONS OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
vs.
CITY OF MONTGOMERY, TODD
STRANGE, and KEVIN MURPHY,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Bill Lietzke filed a complaint on December 22, 2014, that alleged
numerous tort claims and claims based on violations of his constitutional rights
against the city of Montgomery, Alabama and its law enforcement officers. (Doc.
2). Lietzke’s claims arise from an incident that took place in Montgomery,
Alabama. Id. Lietzke proceeds pro se.
United States Magistrate Judge Strong entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on December 30, 2014. (Doc. 4). Judge Strong
granted Lietzke’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Judge Strong concluded
that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Liezke’s claim and that venue would be
improper in the District of Montana. Id. Judge Strong recommended that this Court
dismiss Lietzke’s complaint with prejudice. Id.
1
Lietzke filed objections to Judge Strong’s Findings and Recommendations
on January 9, 2015, and on January 20, 2015. (Doc. 5, 6). Lietzke had 14 days to
object to Judge Strong’s Findings and Recommendations. Lietzke submitted his
second set of objections to Judge Strong’s Findings and Recommendations
sometime after January 14, 2014. (Doc. 6). Lietzke failed to file this second set of
objections within 14 days of service as required under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
Court declines to review Lietzke’s untimely objections.
The Court will review de novo the portions of the Findings and
Recommendations to which Lietzke’s has filed timely objections. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Lietzke’s timely objections appear to be a proposed order regarding
Lietzke’s claims. (Doc. 5). Lietzke fails to object to any particular factual finding
or recommendation of Judge Strong. The Court will review for clear error the
remainder of the Findings and Recommendations. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court
finds no clear error in Judge Strong’s Findings and Recommendations, and adopts
them in full.
None of the parties in this case are found in Montana. The Court lacks
personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A); Mont. R. Civ. P. 4(b)(1). Lietzke
did not reside in Montana at the commencement of this action and no defendant
resides in Montana. Liezke’s claims arise from actions that took place outside
2
Montana. Venue is improper in any division of the Court. Local Rule 3.2(b); 28
U.S.C. § 1291(b). These defects could not be cured by any amendment.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2.
Judge Strong’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN
FULL.
3.
The Clerk is directed to have the docket 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.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2015.
3
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?