Sadler v. M.S.P.

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 in full. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 3/12/2018. Mailed to Sadler (TAG)

FILED
MAR 12 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION

Clerk, U.S Courts
District Of Montana
Missoula Division

TIMOTHY RAY SADLER,
CV 17-101-H-DLC-JTJ
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

M.S.P., et al.,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered his Findings and
Recommendations on January 17, 2018, recommending to dismiss Plaintiff
Timothy Sadler's ("Sadler") Complaint (Doc. 2) for failing to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

(Doc. 6.)

Sadler failed to timely object to the

Findings and Recommendations, and so waived the right to de novo review of the
record.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(C).

This Court reviews for clear error those

findings and recommendations to which no party objects.

See McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.
1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Clear error exists ifthe 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).

-1-

Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendations, (Doc. 6), the Court
finds no clear error in Judge Johnston's conclusion that Sadler's Complaint should
be dismissed because it violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by
failing to bring specific claims and factual allegations against specific defendants.
Judge Johnston specifically concludes that the Complaint is "nearly incoherent"
and fails to allege any claims to which Plaintiff is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.

(Doc. 4.)

To the extent that Plaintiff uses§ 1983 as a vehicle to

challenge his criminal conviction or to obtain damages resulting from his
conviction, these claims are barred by Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
( 1994) (finding that a plaintiff may not recover damages from an allegedly
unconstitutional conviction unless she can prove that her conviction or sentence
has been reversed on direct appeal or otherwise declared invalid.).

As Sadler's

conviction has not been reversed, declared invalid, expunged, or called into
question, Judge Johnston did not clearly err in concluding that Sadler's Complaint
fails to state a claim.
Judge Johnston allowed Sadler leave to cure the defects in the Complaint on
or before January 5, 2018.

(Doc. 4).

Sadler failed to do so.

Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED that:
(1) Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 6) are
ADOPTED IN FULL.

-2-

(2) This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a
claim.
(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment in
favor of Defendants pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(4) The Clerk of Court 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.
person could suppose an appeal would have merit.

No reasonable

The record makes plain that

the Complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact.
(5) The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that this
dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Plaintiff failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be grante
DATED this

f"l~ay of March, 2018.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-3-