Raelund et al v. Enz et al, No. 9:2017cv00056 - Document 20 (D. Mont. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 8/31/2017. (APP) Copy mailed to pltfs
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Raelund et al v. Enz et al Doc. 20 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION "ANTONIUS-DAMASCUS:RAELUND CANDACE:RAELUND, CANDILEE: WEEKS (LILES) (RAELUND)," AUG 3 1 2017 Clerk., U S Di . District Of A~tnct Court AA · •viontana •viissou/a CV 17-56-M-DLC-JCL ORDER Plaintiffs, vs. "ERICK MENZ, KEELEE M. ENZ, LYNN C. REHM, KIM T. CHRISTOPHERSON," Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendations in this case on August 10, 2017, recommending that this matter be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed a timely objection to the Findings and Recommendations, and so are entitled to a de novo review of those findings and recommendations to which they specifically object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 1 This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. , Inc. , 1 Plaintiffs filed multiple "Notices" which the Court construes as objections. (See Docs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19.) -1- Dockets.Justia.com 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 omitted). Judge Lynch concluded, and this Court agrees, that dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiffs have failed to amend their Complaint to allege facts to establish that this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Instead, Plaintiffs have filed multiple "Notices" relating to counterclaims alleged in their ongoing state civil action. Plaintiffs have also alleged that "Title 28 gives the court Jurisdiction." (Doc. 5 at 1.) However, this is insufficient to plead subject matter jurisdiction. Without more, the Plaintiffs are unable to prove that subject matter jurisdiction exists here. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED IN FULL. This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DATED this ~I s tday of August, 20 7 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.
