Bartle v. Batista et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 in full. Defendants Mike Batista, Leroy Kirkegard, Dan Hess, Paul Lucier, Carla Strutzl, Howie Wigert, and Billie Reich as listed in the original complaint are DISMISSED. Bartie's Eighth Amendment claim regarding false information provided to the Parole Board is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 3/3/2015. Mailed to Bartle. (TAG, )

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION

MAR 0 3 2015
Clerk, U.S. District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula

CV 13-74-H-DWM-JTJ

STEPHEN HEATH BARTLE,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.
MIKE BATISTA, LEROY
KIRKEGARD, DAN HESS,
ROXANNE WIGERT, VERA
HOSCHEID, PAUL LUCIER,
TRACY NAPIER, CARLA
STRUTZL, HOWIE WIGERT,
ALVIN FODE, and BILLIE REICH,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Stephen Heath Bartle, appearing pro se, alleges Defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (Compl., Doc. 2.) Pursuant to Magistrate
Judge Keith Strong's June 19, 2014 Order, (Doc. 13), Bartle filed an Amended
Complaint, (Doc. 14). Judge Strong entered Findings and Recommendations
recommending that Defendants Mike Batista, Leroy Kirkegard, Dan Hess, Paul
Lucier, Carla Strutzl, Howie Wigert, and Billie Reich and Bartle's allegations
regarding false information given to the Parole Board be dismissed. (Doc. 15.)
Bartle has not filed objections to Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations.
-1-

The court reviews findings and recommendations on nondispositive motions
for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). On

dispositive motions, the parties are entitled to de novo review of the specified
findings or recommendations to which they object, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l);
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 656 F.2d at 1313, and where there are no objections,

the court is to give the level of consideration it deems appropriate, Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require
district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo
or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). This Court
reviews for clear error. 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).
The Court finds no clear error with Judge Strong's determination that
Defendants Batista, Kirkegard, Hess, Lucier, Strutzl, Wigert, and Reich should be
dismissed because Bartle did not name them in the Amended Complaint. (See
Doc. 14 at 3-4.) The Court also finds no clear error with Judge Strong's
determination that Bartle's allegation that false information was provided to the
Parole Board violated his Eighth Amendment rights should be dismissed because
-2-

such a claim is not cognizable under§ 1983. Butterfieldv. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023,
1024 (9th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 15) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Mike Batista, Leroy
Kirkegard, Dan Hess, Paul Lucier, Carla Strutzl, Howie Wigert, and Billie Reich
as listed in the original complaint are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bartie's Eighth Amendment claim
regarding false informJ. provided to the Parole Board is DISMISSED.
DATED this _1_ day ofMarch, 2015.

-3-