Baugus v. Werner et al, No. 1:2015cv00024 - Document 11 (D. Mont. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. Complaint 1 DISMISSED. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 8/7/2015. Mailed to Baugus. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Baugus v. Werner et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION FILED AUG 0 8 . ,. ... .J i. (.. ". JACKSON BRYANT BAUGUS, Clerk, U.S. District Court CV 15-24-BLG-SPW Drstni~:intana Plaintiff, ORDER vs. MARK WERNER, Attorney at Law; ROBERT STEVENS, Jr., Attorney at Law; MARK T. ERREBO, Attorney at Law; BRYAN B. NORCROSS, Attorney at Law; JAMES E. BOLAND, Attorney at Law; JAMES SEYKORA, Attorney at Law; and OTHER UNNAMED JOHN DOES, Defendants. In this action, Plaintiff Jackson Baugus brings claims against several attorneys. Baugus alleges that the attorneys deprived him of due process of law by failing to prevent the seizure of his cash and property. United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby entered Findings and Recommendations on May 14, 2015, in which she recommended that this Court dismiss Baugus's Complaint based upon the issue preclusion doctrine, Baugus's failure to file the Complaint within the applicable statute of limitations, and his failure to name a proper party defendant. After adopting Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations without objection on June 9, 2015, this Court reopened the case and allowed Baugus until 1 Dockets.Justia.com July 9, 2015 to file objections. Baugus filed a document on August 3, 2015 entitled "Notice of Interlocutory Appeal." This Court construes it as an objection to the Findings and Recommendations. The objection was filed well past the July 9 deadline because Baugus initially mailed it to the wrong place. This Court will consider Baugus's objections timely, and he is entitled to a de novo review to the portion of the Findings and Recommendations to which he objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). However, Baugus does not specifically object to any of Judge Ostby's conclusions. This Court still conducted a de novo review of the record and concludes that Judge Ostby did not commit error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgement pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. 5. The Clerk of Court shall have the docket reflect that this dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l 915(g). 2 y/>- DATED this 1 day of August, 2015. A ~-=-'-· f'-w~~ -'slJSANP. WATTERS United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.