Shriner v. Wild Jack's Casino et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 7 Findings and Recommendations, 5 Amended Complaint filed by William H Shriner. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 12/2/2011. Copy mailed to Shriner. (DED, )

FILED

DEC 0 2 2011
PATRICK E. DUFFY, CLERK

By"'='oe""'PUTY=""CLERK=",
MlO::SSO\JlA=""-­

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

HELENA DMSION

WILLIAM H. SHRINER,

)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.

CV 11-63-H-DWM-RKS

ORDER

)
)

)

)

WILD JACK'S CASINO, et aI.,
Defendants.

------------------------)

The plaintiff, William H. Shriner, filed a complaint, alleging that he was
unlawfully banned from Wild Jack's Casino. (Dkt # 2). He is proceeding pro se
and in forma payperis.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Strong under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). Judge Strong ordered Mr. Shriner to file an amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, (dkt # 4), and Mr. Shriner did so on November 9,2011,
(dkt # 5).
1

Judge Strong recommends dismissing Mr. Shriner's complaint because his
claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
(Dkt # 4). Mr. Shriner timely objected to Judge Strong's Findings and
Recommendation. (Dkt # 6). He is therefore entitled to de novo review of the
specified findings or recommendations to which he objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(bXl).
The Court reviews portions of the Findings and Recommendation not specifically
objected to for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. y. Commodore Bus. Mach..
Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Since the parties are familiar with the facts ofthis case, they are restated
here only as necessary to explain the Court's decision.
The Court agrees with Judge Strong's recommendation that Mr. Shriner's
amended complaint should be dismissed. Mr. Shriner's claims are barred by the
statute oflimitations. In his objections, Mr. Shriner disputes that conclusion. He
writes: "On Aug 23,2011, my case was dismissed from [the] MT Supreme Court. I
was told I had 90 days to file in U.S. District Court for [a] civil action. This is not
an appeal." 2 (dkt # 8).
Regardless of how much time Mr. Shriner had to file his case in this Court
after the case was dismissed from the Montana Supreme Court, he must still
satisfy the three-year statute oflimitation. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204; Daviton
v. Co!umbjalHCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001). He has
2

not done so. Nor has he explained why the statute should be tolled or why his late
filing should otherwise be excused.
Since Mr. Shriner's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, the
Court need not resolve the Rooker-Feldman issue. ~ 5-6 (dIct # 7)
The Court finds no clear error in the portions ofJudge Strong's Findings
and Recommendation to which Mr. Shriner does not object.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that William Shriner's amended

,_'oint (dkt # 5);' D1SMl~ th' ,talut, oflimitatioM.
DATED this

1a

j ....

y of

2011.

Donald W. .01 y, District Judge
United Stat<ts Di
!

3