Opinion
Case No. CV07-168-E-EJL.
December 11, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff Blaine Murray initiated this action against Defendants alleging various federal and state law causes of action. Subsequently, Defendants Fremont County and Troy Evans filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 29, 2007, and Defendants State of Idaho, Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Charlie Anderson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 12, 2007. On November 13, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the motions for summary judgment be granted.
Plaintiff has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Williams' recommendation. Any party may challenge a magistrate judge's proposed recommendation regarding a dispositive motion by filing written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court must then "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate. Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Standards
Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Adams v. Synthes Spine Co., 298 F.3d 1114, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2002).Discussion
The background of this case is covered in detail by the Report and Recommendation and the Court need not repeat it here. The Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge erred in making his recommendation. The Court has considered the Plaintiff's contentions and finds that the magistrate judge identified the correct legal standards and properly applied those standards to the record.
In particular, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that Defendant Troy Evans is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on the Plaintiff's federal claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and all state law claims, and that Defendant Fremont County is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's § 1983 claims because there is no evidence of deliberate indifference. (Report and Recommendation at 10-14). The magistrate judge also is correct in concluding that the Plaintiff's claims brought in federal court against Defendants State of Idaho, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Charlie Anderson in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. (Id. at 8-9). Furthermore, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that any claim asserted against Defendant Anderson in his individual capacity for false testimony is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Id. at 15-16). The Court also agrees that summary judgment is appropriate on any malicious prosecution claim asserted against Defendants because the Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of malice, and that any state law claim also is barred under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, Idaho Code §§ 6-901 through 6-929. (Id. at 16-18). Finally, the magistrate judge properly identified as an alternative ground for dismissal of the state law claims the fact that Plaintiff had failed to comply with the bond requirement of Idaho Code § 6-610(2). (Id. at 18-19).
ORDER
Having conducted a de novo review of the objected to portions of the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation is well founded in law and consistent with this Court's own view of the evidence in the record. Acting on the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Williams, and this Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on November 13, 2007 (docket no. 25), should be, and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (docket nos. 10 and 13) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED in its entirety.