Biederman v. Ms. Powell et al

Filing 88

ORDER ADOPTING 86 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 61 , 65 Motions for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 32 Motion for Summary Judgment, 82 , 83 Motions for Reconsideration. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken ingood faith. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 6/19/2019. Mailed to Biederman (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLLS DIVISION
DONALD DEAN BIEDERMAN,
CV 18–00016–GF–BMM–JTJ
Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
ASSISTANT WARDEN DEBORAH
POWELL, KARI ALSTAD, PETER
MOLNAR, and AMBER MASSEY
Defendants.

Plaintiff Donald Dean Biederman (“Biederman”), a pro se prisoner
proceeding without counsel, filed two Motions for Reconsideration. (Docs. 32, 83.)
Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 32, 61, 65.)
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered his Order and
Findings and Recommendations in this matter on May 16, 2019. (Doc. 86.) Judge
Johnston denied as moot Biederman’s Motions for Reconsideration. (Docs. 82,
83.) Judge Johnston further determined that no genuine dispute exists regarding
any material fact in relation to Biederman’s claims. (Doc. 86 at 2.) Accordingly,

-1-

Judge Johnston recommended the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgement
should be granted on the merits and this matter be dismissed. Id.
Biederman timely filed an objection on June 12, 2019. (Doc. 82.) Biederman
is entitled to de novo review of those findings and recommendations to which he
has specifically objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Absent specific objection, this
Court reviews findings and recommendations for clear error. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d
422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “A party makes a proper objection by
identifying the parts of the magistrate’s disposition that the party finds
objectionable and presenting legal argument and supporting authority, such that the
district court is able to identify the issues and the reasons supporting a contrary
result.” Montana Shooting Sports Ass’n v. Holder, 2010 WL 4102940, at *2 (D.
Mont. Oct. 18, 2010) (citation omitted).
Biederman’s objection presents a reargument of the same allegations that he
brought forth in his original Complaint. (Doc. 2.) Biederman further fails to present
a legal argument and supporting authority to any part of Judge Johnston’s Findings
and Recommendations. Therefore, the Court reviews Judge Johnson’s Findings
-2-

and Recommendations for clear error. The Court finds no clear error in Judge
Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston’s Order and Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. 86) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Biederman’s Motions for
Reconsideration (Docs. 82, 83) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Alstad’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Alstad’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 61) and the CoreCivic Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 65) is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close
the case and enter judgment in favor of Defendants pursuant to Rule 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed 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. No reasonable person could suppose an appeal would have merit.

-3-

DATED this 13th day of June, 2019.

-4-