Hamous v. Kestell et al, No. 9:2017cv00121 - Document 8 (D. Mont. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 1/31/2018. (APP) Copy to Hamous
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hamous v. Kestell et al Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION JEROME HAMOUS, P11:, /J.'h. IAN 8 U ~~ 1 ;0/B ~'l"ioi o,~ Co"'1l v..o"'11l.J.8 o,,,11. 8 a7 "ia;o~" CV 17-121-M-DLC-JCL Plaintiff, ORDER vs. JOHN KESTELL, and CHUCK BARLOW, Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and Recommendations in this case on October 31, 2017, recommending that Plaintiff Jerome Hamous' ("Hamous") case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 6 at 5-6.) Hamous timely objected and is entitled to a de novo review of those findings and recommendations to which he specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(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 ifthe Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. -1- Dockets.Justia.com Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Judge Lynch concluded, and this Court agrees, that Hamous has attempted to plead a discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Amendments Act but that his Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) fails to state facts essential to such a claim. Hamous' objection fails to present any new evidence and, instead, reiterates the same facts and arguments already reviewed by Judge Lynch. Hamous' objection is merely a rehashed argument of the same allegations made in his Amended Complaint. Consequently, this Court reviews for clear error and, finding none, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL and this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. DATED this?21._sJay of January, 2018. 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.
