DeCoteau v. Leavitt et al, No. 4:2008cv00088 - Document 5 (D. Mont. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint IFP/Prisoner filed by Crystal DeCoteau Objections to F&R due by 4/13/2009. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 3/25/2009. (SLL, ) Modified on 3/25/2009 to reflect copy mailed to Plt DeCoteau on 3/25/09 (SLR, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DeCoteau v. Leavitt et al Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION CRYSTAL D. DeCOTEAU, Plaintiff, CV-08-88-GF-SEH-RKS vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, and IHS, Defendants. Plaintiff, Ms. Crystal DeCoteau, was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis with this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (C.D. 4.) The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § -1- Dockets.Justia.com 200e-5(e). The case is referred to the undersigned to issue Findings and Recommendations pursuant to Local Rule 73. Ms. Decoteau’s Complaint was screened pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and she was given notice that her Complaint did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (C.D. 4.) Ms. Decoteau was given an opportunity to amend her Complaint. (Id.) Ms. DeCoteau had until February 15, 2009 to file her amended Complaint. (Id.) No amended Complaint has been filed, nor has Ms. DeCoteau filed notice of intent to rely upon her initial Complaint. Because her initial Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it should be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Ms. DeCoteau’s Complaint(C.D. 2) should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Ms. DeCoteau may -2- serve and file written objections to these Findings and Recommendations within ten (10) business days of the date entered as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. A district judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the Findings and Recommendations to which objection is made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Findings and Recommendations. Failure to timely file written objections may bar a de novo determination by the district judge. DATED this 25th day of March, 2009. /s/ Keith Strong Keith Strong U.S. Magistrate 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.
