LongJaw v. Young

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 in full. 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Timothy J. LongJaw is DENIED, and the Complaint 2 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 4/18/2011. Mailed to LongJaw. (TAG, )

Download PDF
J::-/{~ #>~ 4,» /8 () 8y ~IC-t <0// ~ ~DI.J. -'<fIY :I'''''y Ci.€ . c{~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION TIMOTHY LONG JAW, Plaintiff, vs. BRIAN YOUNG, Defendant. 1i>1r;.trf.s~ Ii'Ir -"'4 CV 11-25-M-DWM-JCL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) Plaintiff Timothy Long Jaw filed a proposed Complaint and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in this action on February 4, 2011. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendation on March 15,2011, and found that Long Jaw cannot establish either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Judge Lynch accordingly recommended denying Long Jaw's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and dismissing the proposed Complaint. Plaintiff did not timely objecf to the Findings and Recommendation, 'Plaintiff did file a notice dated Mareh, 14, 2011, the day before the Findings and Recommendation was filed. (See dkt #8). The notice requests more "insight" on how to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court presumes the Findings and Recommendation provided the requested information. ·1· and so has waived the right to de novo review ofthe record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). This Court will review the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Com. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). 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). After a review of Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation, I find no such error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (dkt #7) is adopted in full. The Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (dkt #5) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack ofjurisdiction. V. Dated this Jf{day of April, 2011. / / olloy, District Judge District Court I ( -2­

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?