Smith v. State of Montana et al, No. 6:2015cv00013 - Document 83 (D. Mont. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 81 in full; denying without prejudice 56 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/31/2016. Mailed to Smith. (TAG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. State of Montana et al Doc. 83 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION BENJAMIN KARL SMITH, Oc;-.JI . CV 15-13-H-DLC-JTJ Plaintiff, ORDER vs. IRL LAMBERTSON, OFFICER FOSNESS, and OFFICER MACHLER, Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered his Order, Findings and Recommendations in this matter on October 5, 2016, recommending denial of Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice. The parties failed to timely object to the Findings and Recommendations, and so waived their right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(l)(C). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 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) (citations -1- Dockets.Justia.com omitted). Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendations, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston's conclusion that Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied without prejudice in order to allow Plaintiff to conduct additional discovery. The Court further agrees that following the completion of discovery, Defendants may refile their motion for summary judgment. There being no clear error in Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL. (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 56) is DENIED without prejudice and subject to renewal after the completion of the discovery period provided to Plaintiff. Dated this 31 of October, 2016 Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court -2-
]]>
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.
