Barnett v. Holcim, No. 2:2014cv00009 - Document 50 (D. Mont. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Findings and Recommendations re 49 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 9/4/2015. (dle)

Download PDF
Barnett v. Holcim Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION LEE BARNETT, CV 14–09–BU–DWM Plaintiff, ORDER vs. HOLCIM, INC., Defendant. Pending before the Court is Defendant Holcim, Inc.’s (“Holcim”) motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 38.) Magistrate Judge Lynch entered findings and recommendations on August 19, 2015, recommending the Court grant-in-part and deny-in-part Holcim’s motion. (Doc. 49.) The Court agrees. As the parties are familiar with the factual background, it will not be restated here. Parties are entitled to de novo review of the specified findings or recommendations to which they object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because neither party filed objections, the findings and recommendations are reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and 1 Dockets.Justia.com firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Judge Lynch did not clearly err in determining that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff Lee Barnett’s (“Barnett”) employment was terminated for good cause. Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-904(1)(b). Nor did he err in finding that Barnett’s claim based on an alleged violation of Holcim’s personnel policy fails as a matter of law. § 39-2-904(1)(c). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 49) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Holcim’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. It is GRANTED as to Barnett’s claim under § 39-2-904(1)(c), but DENIED as to Barnett’s claim under § 39-2-904(1)(b). Dated this 4th day of September, 2015. 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.