Woods v. Department of Child and Family Services et al
Filing
14
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 13 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 9/29/2015. (SLL, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
CV 15-04-GF-BMM
NIKITA WOODS,
Plaintiff,
AMENDED
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES, TERRENCE
LYNCH, SARAH GROTBO, MARY
GETTEL, MARY JO JEFFRIES,
ANGELA MYERS, and LARRY
LAFONTAIN,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Nikita Woods filed a Complaint on January 7, 2014. (Doc. 2.)
Woods proceeds in forma pauperis. Woods alleges that Defendants illegally took
her son and daughter from her. The Court previously dismissed Woods’s original
Complaint for failure to state a claim. Woods filed an Amended Complaint on May
20, 2015. (Doc. 6.)
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on July 27, 2015. (Doc. 8.) Judge Johnston
reviewed Woods’s Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and
1
recommended that this Court dismiss her claims against Defendants Lynch,
Jeffries, and M[e]yers because they were not acting under color of state law. Judge
Johnston also recommended that this Court dismiss Woods’s claims against the
Department of Child and Family Services and Judge Macek as they enjoy
immunity from suit. The Magistrate Judge found that Woods failed to state a claim
against Defendant Lafontain and recommended that the claims against him should
also be dismissed. The unlawful arrest claim against Officers Halloran and Klundt1
is time barred and Judge Johnston recommended that it be dismissed as well.
Finally, Judge Johnston recommended that the remaining Defendants respond to
Woods’s slander and due process claims. (Doc. 8.)
Woods timely filed objections to Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations on August 4, 2015. (Doc. 10.) 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 [complaint], the applicable portions of the findings and recommendations
1
Woods improperly refers to the Officers as Officers Halloram and Klunt.
2
will be reviewed for clear error." Rosling v. Kirkegard, 2014 WL 693315 *3 (D.
Mont. Feb. 21, 2014) (internal citations omitted).
Woods raises several objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
(Doc. 10.) Many objections attempt to make factual corrections that do not affect
the legal outcome. Id. After reviewing Woods’s objections, the Court finds that her
objections lack merit and simply restate the allegations made in the Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 6.)
The Court agrees with Judge Johnston’s recommendation that Defendants
Gettel, Clark, and Grotbo must respond to Woods’s slander and due process
claims.
This Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations and adopts them in full.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of her mother and Mr. James Dean Bird, Jr. are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
2.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lynch, Jeffries, and M[e]yers are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
3.
The Department of Child and Family Services and Judge Macek are immune
from suit and Plaintiff’s claims against them are DISMISSED with prejudice.
3
4.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lafontain are DISMISSED with
prejudice.
5.
Defendants Gettel, Clark, and Grotbo are ORDERED to respond to
Plaintiff’s slander and due process claims.
6.
The Clerk of Court shall have the docket reflect that the Court certifies
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A) that any appeal of this
decision would not be taken in good faith.
7.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
DATED this 29th day of September, 2015.
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?