Baugus v. Werner et al, No. 1:2015cv00024 - Document 6 (D. Mont. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. The Complaint 1 is 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 6/9/2015. Mailed to Baugus. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Baugus v. Werner et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION FILED JUN 0 9 2015 JACKSON BRYANT BAUGUS, Clerk, US District Court CV 15-24-BLG-SPW District Of Montana Billings Plaintiff, vs. ORDER 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. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), Baugus had 14 days to file written objections after Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations were filed. No 1 Dockets.Justia.com objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court must still review Judge Ostby's conclusions for clear error. 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). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find that Judge Ostby committed clear 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. § 1915(g). DATED thi' ~ofJuno, 2015. . ~- -~ '. e i1'.Jar:e:; "'SUSANP. WATTERS United States District Judge 2 < _,

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.