Grigg v. Flathead District Attorney

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Montana adopts a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation dismissing Peter Grigg’s civil rights complaint against the Flathead District Attorney with prejudice. The court holds that prosecutorial immunity applies to the alleged charging and disclosure decisions and rejects Grigg’s objections concerning immunity and his right to appeal. The court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and directs the clerk to enter a separate judgment of dismissal.

Holdings

1. A prosecutor is absolutely immune from damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conduct within the scope of prosecutorial duties, including the alleged decisions not to charge certain people and not to disclose information to the plaintiff.
2. A party objecting to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations must identify the challenged portions and provide argument and supporting authority; a bare statement of objection is insufficient.
3. The plaintiff was not denied a right to appeal because the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation was not a final appealable judgment and the district court followed the objection procedure required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff's allegations concerning prosecutorial charging decisions and nondisclosure of information were barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the plaintiff was denied a right to appeal when the district court provided an opportunity to object to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations before entering final judgment.
3. Whether the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations should be adopted and the complaint dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Disposition

dismissed