Hartsoe v. State of Montana et al
ORDER ADOPTING 99 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting Goffs' 94 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Hartsoe's independent state law claims against the Goffs are DISMISSED for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 11/28/2017. (APP) Copy to Hartsoe
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
N ~ S =~il
CV 16- 87-M-DLC- JCL
STATE OF MONTANA, et al. ,
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and
Recommendations in this case on October 31, 2017, recommending that
Defendants Brandon and Rebecca Goffs ("the Goffs") Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 94) be granted and Plaintiff John
Hartsoe' s ("Hartsoe") claims against the Goffs be dismissed. (Doc. 99 at 7.)
Thirteen days after Judge Lynch entered his Findings and Recommendations
Hartsoe filed what appears to be a response to the Goffs' Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
105) which this Court will treat as an objection. Consequently, Hartsoe is entitled
to a de novo review of those findings and recommendations to which he
specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(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).
Judge Lynch concluded, and this Court agrees, that Hartsoe's claims against
the Goffs are entirely predicated upon Montana law and do not share a common
nucleus of operative facts with Hartsoe's federal claims against other Defendants.
(Doc. 99 at 5-7.) Consequently, Hartsoe's claims against the Goffs should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hartsoe's objection fails to
present any new evidence or law regarding subject matter jurisdiction and, instead,
superficially argues that jurisdiction exists because otherwise "tyranny at its
finest" exists. (Doc. 105 at 1.) Hartsoe's unsupported and meritless argument
fails to reference Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations, which aptly
determined the nonexistence of any basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Having
failed to specifically object to any of Judge Lynch's Finding and
Recommendations, this Court reviews the record for clear error. L.R. 72.3(a); see
also McDonnell Douglas Corp., 656 F.2d at 1313. Finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations (Doc.
99) are ADOPTED IN FULL. The Goffs' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 94) is GRANTED and Hartsoe's independent state law
claims against the Goffs are DISMISSED for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
2f>~day of November, 2017.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?