James et al v. Wallowa County et al

Filing 64

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation 56 and, therefore, GRANTS Defendants' Motions 23 , 32 for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs' Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Claims. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion 51 to Strike. Signed on 8/10/2016 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (kms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DUSTIN JAMES, individually,
and LORIEN JAMES, individually,
and as husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN LINDSTROM, individually and
as Building Official for Wallowa
County and the City of Pendleton;
MICHELE YOUNG, individually and
as City Administrator for the City
of Enterprise; RONNIE NEIL,
individually and as Superintendent
of Public Works for the City of
Enterprise; the CITY OF ENTERPRISE,
a municipal subdivision of the
State of Oregon; WALLOWA COUNTY,
a municipal subdivision of the
State of Oregon; JOHN DOES 1-5
(fictitiously designated),
individually and as agents,
officers, and/or employees of
Wallowa County and/or the City of
Enterprise; JANE DOES 1-5
(fictitiously designated),
individually and as agents, officers,
and/or employees of Wallowa County
and/or the City of Enterprise,
Defendants.

1 - ORDER

2:15-CV-00919-SU
ORDER

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and
Recommendation (#56) on June 9, 2016, in which she recommends the
Court grant Defendants' Motions (#23, #32) for Summary Judgment
as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims; dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal and
state constitutional claims with prejudice; and dismiss
Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, quiet title, ORICO,
declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief without prejudice.
The Magistrate Judge also recommends the Court deny Plaintiffs’
Motion (#51) to Strike.
Plaintiffs filed timely Objections (#61) to the Magistrate
Judges’ Findings and Recommendation.

The matter is now before

this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

DISCUSSION
The claims of Plaintiffs Justin James and Lorien James arise

2 - ORDER

out of a dispute concerning Defendant City of Enterprise’s
easement for an underground waterline on Plaintiffs’ property and
Plaintiffs’ development of their property in relation to that
easement.
In their Complaint Plaintiffs allege claims against Wallowa
County; the City of Enterprise; John Lindstrom, the County
Building Official; Michele Young, the City Administrator; Ronnie
Neil, the City’s Superintendent of Public Works; and 10
unidentified “Doe” defendants.

Plaintiffs assert nine claims

against Defendants as follows:
1. Claim One against Defendants City of Enterprise, Neil,
and Young: For violation of Plaintiffs’ due-process rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that Defendants
deprived Plaintiffs of their property rights and liberty
interests by directing Defendant Lindstrom to issue a StopWork Order.
2. Claim Two against Defendants Wallowa County and
Lindstrom: For violation of Plaintiffs’ due-process right
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that Defendants
deprived Plaintiffs of their property rights and liberty
interests by issuing a Stop-Work Order.
3. Claim Three against Defendants Wallowa County and
Lindstrom: For violation of Plaintiffs’ due-process rights
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution on the grounds that Defendants did not
provide prior notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to
contest the Stop-Work Order.
4. Claim Four against Defendants City of Enterprise, Neil
and Young: For violation of Plaintiffs’ due-process rights
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution on the ground that Defendants acted to
prevent Plaintiffs from developing their land without a
finding that Plaintiffs had violated applicable laws,
regulations, or building codes.

3 - ORDER

5. Claim Five against Defendants City of Enterprise, Neil,
Young, Wallowa County, and Lindstrom: For violation of
Oregon’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(Or. Rev. Stats. § 166.715, et seq.) on the ground that
Defendants acted together to deprive Plaintiffs of their
property rights.
6. Claim Six against all Defendants: For negligence on the
ground that Defendants’ conduct caused damage to Plaintiffs.
7. Claim Seven against Defendants City of Enterprise, Neil,
Young, Wallowa County,and Lindstrom: For retaliation under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Plaintiffs for exercising, among
other things, their rights of free speech and their right to
develop their private property.
8. Claim Eight against Defendants City of Enterprise and
Wallowa County: For inverse condemnation for temporary
takings under the Oregon Constitution and the United States
Constitution on the ground that Defendants interfered with
Plaintiffs’ use of their property as a result of the StopWork Order.
9. Claim Nine against Defendants City of Enterprise and
Wallowa County: To quiet title under Oregon Revised Statute
§ 105.605 and for declaratory relief and injunctive relief
under Oregon Revised Statute § 28.010 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 22012202.
The Magistrate Judge recommends this Court dismiss with
prejudice Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and
Eighth Claims and dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Fifth,
Sixth, and Ninth Claims (the state-law claims).
Plaintiffs object only to the factual findings of the
Magistrate Judge as to Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Fifth, Sixth,
Seventh, and Ninth Claims and contend those Findings “are clearly
disputed” and without support in the record.

Thus, Plaintiffs

assert Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on those
Claims because a genuine dispute of material fact exists.
4 - ORDER

After reviewing the record, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’
recitation and characterization of the facts do not raise a
genuine dispute as to any material fact, and, therefore,
Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of
Plaintiffs’ claims.

Thus, after carefully considering

Plaintiffs’ Objections, the Court concludes they do not provide a
basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation.
The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the
record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings and
Recommendation (#56) and, therefore, GRANTS Defendants’ Motions
(#23, #32) for Summary Judgment.

Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third,
Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims and DISMISSES without
prejudice Plaintiffs’ Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Claims.

The Court

also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion (#51) to Strike.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge
5 - ORDER