Raelund et al v. Enz et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 8/31/2017. (APP) Copy mailed to pltfs

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

"ANTONIUS-DAMASCUS:RAELUND
CANDACE:RAELUND,
CANDILEE: WEEKS (LILES)
(RAELUND),"

AUG 3 1 2017
Clerk., U S Di

.

District Of A~tnct Court
AA ·
•viontana
•viissou/a

CV 17-56-M-DLC-JCL

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
"ERICK MENZ, KEELEE M. ENZ,
LYNN C. REHM, KIM T.
CHRISTOPHERSON,"
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendations in this case on August 10, 2017, recommending that this matter
be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed a timely objection to the Findings and
Recommendations, and so are entitled to a de novo review of those findings and
recommendations to which they specifically object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 1
This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which
no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. , Inc. ,
1

Plaintiffs filed multiple "Notices" which the Court construes as objections. (See Docs. 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19.)
-1-

656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); 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).
Judge Lynch concluded, and this Court agrees, that dismissal is appropriate
because Plaintiffs have failed to amend their Complaint to allege facts to establish
that this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Instead,
Plaintiffs have filed multiple "Notices" relating to counterclaims alleged in their
ongoing state civil action. Plaintiffs have also alleged that "Title 28 gives the
court Jurisdiction." (Doc. 5 at 1.) However, this is insufficient to plead subject
matter jurisdiction. Without more, the Plaintiffs are unable to prove that subject
matter jurisdiction exists here.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED IN FULL. This case is DISMISSED for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED this

~I s tday of August, 20

7

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-2-