Mather v. Gloege

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 in full. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 9/1/2020. Mailed to Mather (TAG)

Case 6:20-cv-00030-DLC Document 6 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
NATALIE A. MATHER,

CV 20–30–H–DLC–JTJ

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

SHELLY GLOEGE,
Defendant.
On August 6, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered
an Order and Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff Natalie
A. Mather’s equal protection claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc.
5.) Mather does not object. A party is only entitled to de novo review of those
findings to which she specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This Court
reviews for clear error those findings to which no party objects. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 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).
There is no clear error in Judge Johnston’s determination that Mather’s
Complaint fails to state an equal protection claim. Mather asserts her Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection was violated when the Montana Department

Case 6:20-cv-00030-DLC Document 6 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 3

of Labor and Industry provided a copy of her complaint against a licensed Montana
real estate agent to the realtor but, per the department’s policy, did not provide her
with a copy with the realtor’s response. (Doc. 2 at 5–6.) Judge Johnston correctly
determined that this claim does not allege a garden-variety equal protection
challenge because Mather has not demonstrated her participation in a protected
class. See Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 290–91 (1978)
(treating race as a suspect classification); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976)
(treating gender as a quasi-suspect classification). Nor does she adequately allege
a class-of-one equal protection challenge as Mather does not allege that she and the
realtor are similarly situated, nor does she allege the Montana Department of Labor
acted with discriminatory intent. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S.
562, 564 (2000); see also Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th
Cir. 2008).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 5) is ADOPTED in full.
1. This matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment
pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. 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

Case 6:20-cv-00030-DLC Document 6 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 3

faith. The record makes plain the instant Complaint is frivolous as it
lacks arguable substance in law or fact.
DATED this 1st day of September, 2020.