Parke v. City of Butte et al, No. 2:2010cv00042 - Document 59 (D. Mont. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50 in full. Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment 22 , 35 are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery 41 and Defendant's Motion to Strike 46 are DENIED as moot. An appeal ofthis decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 10/5/2011. Mailed to Parke. (TAG, ) Modified on 10/5/2011 to correct docket text (TAG, ).
Download PDF
Parke v. City of Butte et al Doc. 59 FILED 2011 OCT 5 PPl 3 32 BY _ _ _ _ _ __ DEPUTY CLEHK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION CHARLES BERNARD PARKE, Plaintiff, No. CV-1O-42-BU-SEH VS. ORDER CITY OF BUTTE, et ai., Defendants. On August 1,2011, United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered his Findings and Recommendation l in this matter. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appea\2 on August 15, 2011, and this case was stayed pending final resolution of all issues raised in the appeal. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of , Document No. 50 2 Document No. 53 jurisdiction on September 14,2011 3 and issued a Mandate on October 4, 2011. 4 On September 27,2011, Plaintiff moved for extension of time to file objections to Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations/ which was granted on September 27,2011. 6 Plaintiff filed objections? to Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation on October 3, 2011. The Court has fully considered Plaintiffs motion and has reviewed de novo Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). Upon de novo review of the record, I find no error in Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation and adopt them in full. ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motions for Summary JUdgment8 are GRANTED. 2. Plaintifrs Motion for Discovery9 and Defendant's Motion to Strike 10 J Document No. 54 4 Document No. 58 5 Document No. 55 6 Document No. 56 7 Document No. 57 g Document Nos. 22 and 9 Document No. 4\ to Document No. 46 2 are DENIED as moot. 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 4. An appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith as Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his claims and as such no reasonable person could suppose that an appeal would have merit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). fiI DATED this :5 aayof October, 2011 ~~ United States District Judge 3