Preston v. Castle et al, No. 4:2007cv00122 - Document 68 (D. Mont. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59 in full. Defendants' 29 , 47 Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED. Plaintiff's 63 Motion to Continue is DENIED. The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 1/29/2010. Copy mailed to Preston. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Preston v. Castle et al Doc. 68 FILED JAN 2 9 2010 PATRICK E. DUFFY, CLERK sv DEPUTY CLERK, BUrrE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION JEREMIAH CLAY PRESTON, Plaintiff, CV 07- 122-GF-SEH ORDER VS. SHERIFF DAVID CASTLE, CAPTAIN DAN O'FALLON, NURSE PRACTITIONER LAURAL VANDERCHEK, CORPORAL BILL NEVINS, OFFICER MIKE DESSAULT, OFFICER WILLIAM KOMAR, and the CASCADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. Defendants. On November 19,2009, United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered Findings and Recommendations' in this matter. Plaintiff filed objections ' Docket No. 59. Dockets.Justia.com on December 28,2009~.The Court reviews de novo findings and recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. 9 636(b)(1). Upon de novo review of the record, I find no error in Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations and adopt them in full. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Continuance.' Plaintiff, by affidavit, claims additional discovery is needed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). "A party requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment." Tatum v. City and Countv of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Plaintiffs affidavit fails to either identify the specific facts further discovery may reveal, or explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment. Plaintiff does not satisfy his burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). ORDERED: 1. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment4are GRANTED. 'Document No. 62. 'Document No. 63. 4DocumentNos. 29 and 47. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Continuance5is DENIED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 4. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith as no reasonable person could conclude that an appeal had merit. Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3)(A). DATED this January, 20 10. lhited States District Judge 5DocumentNo. 6 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.