Bartle v. Batista et al, No. 6:2013cv00074 - Document 28 (D. Mont. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 in full. Defendants Mike Batista, Leroy Kirkegard, Dan Hess, Paul Lucier, Carla Strutzl, Howie Wigert, and Billie Reich as listed in the original complaint are DISMISSED. Bartie's Eighth Amendment claim regarding false information provided to the Parole Board is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 3/3/2015. Mailed to Bartle. (TAG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bartle v. Batista et al Doc. 28 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION MAR 0 3 2015 Clerk, U.S. District Court District Of Montana Missoula CV 13-74-H-DWM-JTJ STEPHEN HEATH BARTLE, Plaintiff, ORDER vs. MIKE BATISTA, LEROY KIRKEGARD, DAN HESS, ROXANNE WIGERT, VERA HOSCHEID, PAUL LUCIER, TRACY NAPIER, CARLA STRUTZL, HOWIE WIGERT, ALVIN FODE, and BILLIE REICH, Defendants. Plaintiff Stephen Heath Bartle, appearing pro se, alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (Compl., Doc. 2.) Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Keith Strong's June 19, 2014 Order, (Doc. 13), Bartle filed an Amended Complaint, (Doc. 14). Judge Strong entered Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendants Mike Batista, Leroy Kirkegard, Dan Hess, Paul Lucier, Carla Strutzl, Howie Wigert, and Billie Reich and Bartle's allegations regarding false information given to the Parole Board be dismissed. (Doc. 15.) Bartle has not filed objections to Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations. -1- Dockets.Justia.com The court reviews findings and recommendations on nondispositive motions for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). On dispositive motions, the parties are entitled to de novo review of the specified findings or recommendations to which they object, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); McDonnell Douglas Corp., 656 F.2d at 1313, and where there are no objections, the court is to give the level of consideration it deems appropriate, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). This Court reviews for clear error. Clear error exists if the court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court finds no clear error with Judge Strong's determination that Defendants Batista, Kirkegard, Hess, Lucier, Strutzl, Wigert, and Reich should be dismissed because Bartle did not name them in the Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 14 at 3-4.) The Court also finds no clear error with Judge Strong's determination that Bartle's allegation that false information was provided to the Parole Board violated his Eighth Amendment rights should be dismissed because -2- such a claim is not cognizable under§ 1983. Butterfieldv. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 15) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Mike Batista, Leroy Kirkegard, Dan Hess, Paul Lucier, Carla Strutzl, Howie Wigert, and Billie Reich as listed in the original complaint are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bartie's Eighth Amendment claim regarding false informJ. provided to the Parole Board is DISMISSED. DATED this _1_ day ofMarch, 2015. -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.
