Anato et al v. Barney et al, No. 4:2012cv00103 - Document 93 (D. Mont. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER: United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered 91 Findings and Recommendations in this matter on July 8, 2014. Plaintiffs filed 92 objections on July 22, 2014. The Court reviews de novo findings and recommendations to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Upon de novo review of the record, I find no error in Judge Strong's 91 Findings and Recommendations and adopt them in full. ORDERED: 1) Defendants' 69 Motion to Substitute United States for Defendants on Tort Claims, and Dismiss or in the alternative Grant Summary Judgment is GRANTED as follows: a) Counts 1, 2, 4 6, and 7 of Plaintiffs' 53 Third Amended Complaint are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; b) Summary judgment is GR ANTED in favor of Defendants on Counts 3, 5, and 8 of Plaintiffs' 53 Third Amended Complaint. 2) Plaintiffs' 82 Motion to Deny Certification of Scope of Employment for Defendants is DENIED. The Court certifies under 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. Copy of Order mailed to Pro Se Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 8/4/2014. (SLR, )

Download PDF
Anato et al v. Barney et al Doc. 93 FILED AUG - 4 2U14 Cieri<, u.s. District Court District Of Montana Helena IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION SODJINE PAUL ANATO and SARAH ANATO, No. CV 12·103-GF-SEH Plaintiffs, ORDER VS. LAD BARNEY, CAROL LECHNER, JOANNE BOWERS, MATT JONES, JANELLE GUSTAFSON, JENNIFER NEWBOLD, JOHN D. GUTHMILLER, DEBORAH CHORLTON, ANTHONY J. PREITE, and UNKNOWN FEDERAL WORKERS, Defendants,! United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered Findings and Recommendations in this matter on July 8, 2014.2 Plaintiffs filed objections on 1 The caption is amended to reflect Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 53 at 2 (Doc. 91.) 1.) Dockets.Justia.com July 22,2014. 3 The Court reviews de novo findings and recommendations to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 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. ORDERED: L Defendants' Motion to Substitute United States for Defendants on Tort Claims, and Dismiss or in the alternative Grant Summary Judgment,4 is GRANTED as follows: a. Counts 1,2,4,6 and 7 of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. b. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants on Counts 3, 5, and 8 of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Deny Certification of Scope of Employment for Defendants,S is DENIED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in favor of the DEFENDANTS. '(Doc. 92.) 4 (Doc. 69.) 5 (Doc. 82.) -2­ 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the Court certifies under 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. DATED this 114day of August, 2014. ,., ~fi'I~~ ~~HADDON United States District 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.