United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division
June 9, 2015
JACKSON BRYANT BAUGUS, Plaintiff,
MARK WERNER, Attorney at Law; ROBERT STEVENS, Jr., Attorney at Law; MARK T. ERREBO, Attorney at Law; BRYAN B. NORCROSS Attorney at Law; JAMES E. BOLAND, Attorney at Law; JAMES SEYKORA, Attorney at Law; and OTHER UNNAMED JOHN DOES, Defendants.
SUSAN P. WATTERS, District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff Jackson Baugus brings claims against several attorneys. Baugus alleges that the attorneys deprived him of due process of law by failing to prevent the seizure of his cash and property. United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby entered Findings and Recommendations on May 14, 2015, in which she recommended that this Court dismiss Baugus's Complaint based upon the issue preclusion doctrine, Baugus's failure to file the Complaint within the applicable statute of limitations, and his failure to name a proper party defendant.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Baugus had 14 days to file written objections after Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations were filed. No objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court must still review Judge Ostby's conclusions for clear error. Clear error exists ifthe 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). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find that Judge Ostby committed clear error.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgement pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
5. The Clerk of Court shall have the docket reflect that this dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).