Anato et al v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 4:2017cv00028 - Document 27 (D. Mont. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement 6 is DENIED AS MOOT. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 6 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 7/18/2018. (Copy mailed to Plt Anato) (MMS)

Download PDF
Anato et al v. United States Department of Agriculture Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION SODJINE PAUL ANATO and SARAH ANATO, CV-17-28-GF-BMM-JTJ Plaintiffs, v. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, Defendant. Plaintiffs Sodjine Paul Anato and Sarah Anato filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking review of an order of the National Appeals Division of the United States Department of Agriculture. On March 14, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied review and transferred Plaintiffs’ petition to this Court. (Doc. 1.) Defendant USDA Rural Development moved to dismiss the Petition, or, in the alternative, to require Plaintiffs to amend the pleadings with a more definite statement. (Doc. 6.) Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to serve Defendant, and failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 1 Dockets.Justia.com United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston issued an Order and Findings and Recommendations in this matter on April 18, 2018. (Doc. 21.) Judge Johnston found that Plaintiffs’ subsequently-filed Complaint (Doc. 15) comprised a “more definite statement.” (Doc. 21 at 7.) Judge Johnston found additionally that Plaintiffs’ action constituted an appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. Judge Johnston found, finally, that Plaintiffs failed to name the proper defendants for their tort or constitutional claims. Id. Judge Johnston recommended that Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 6) be denied as moot, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) be denied without prejudice. Id. No party filed objections to Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendation. The Court has thus reviewed the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds no error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendation, and adopts them in full. ORDER Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 21) is ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 18th day of July, 2018. 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.