Taylor v. Igaski

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 1/31/2018. (APP) Copy to Taylor

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHERF. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
LOUANN Y. IGASKI,
Defendant.

On October 18, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch
entered his Findings and Recommendations in this case on October 18, 2017,
recommending that Plaintiff Christopher F. Taylor's ("Taylor") Complaint be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. (Doc. 5.) Taylor timely filed an objection to the
Findings and Recommendations. 1 (Doc. 6.) Thus, Taylor is entitled to a de novo
review of those findings and recommendations to which he specifically objects.
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.

1

Taylor submitted a letter to the Court on November 24, 2017 (Doc. 6), that did not
specifically object to Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations. However, the Court will
construe Taylor's letter as an objection.
-1-

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 Taylor's Complaint
seeks judicial review of a Social Security Administration decision dismissing his
application for disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income
benefits (Doc. 4 at 4) but that Taylor's Complaint fails to state facts essential to
such a claim. (Doc. 5 at 1.) Judge Lynch allowed Taylor until September 16,
201 7, to file an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim of relief and
advised Taylor that failure to do so would result in a recommendation the
Complaint be dismissed. (Doc. 4 at 10-11.) As of today's date, Taylor has not
filed an amended complaint or requested an extension of time.
Taylor's objection to Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations fails to
present any legal argument or explanation regarding his failure to amend the
Complaint. (Doc. 6.) Instead, Taylor's objection is merely a narrative, meritless
argument, and does not specifically object to Judge Lynch's legal findings. (Id.)
Therefore, the Court agrees with Judge Lynch's conclusion that dismissal is
appropriate because Taylor's Complaint fails to state claim upon which relief may
-2-

be granted. Having further reviewed the Findings and Recommendations for clear
error, and finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations (Doc.
5) are ADOPTED IN FULL. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) for the reasons set forth in Judge Lynch's August 16, 2017 Order
(Doc. 4).
DATED this~ l -s.tday of January, 2018.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-3-