1447 serenity circle free#

That the objections stated in defendants' Objections to the Recommendation of U.S. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge , filed Januis approved and adopted as an order of this court Ģ. *2 Thus, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.ġ. Moreover, I concur with her conclusion that a Bivens remedy is cognizable on the facts alleged here, as well as her recommendation that plaintiffs may assert, as an alternative theory, a violation of section 1983 premised on the federal officials alleged enlistment of state law enforcement officers in their attempt to forcibly enter plaintiffs' premises without a warrant. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987)-and a challenge to an officer's conduct under the statute-which does not. The magistrate judge has explained and explored the relevant distinction between a challenge to the statute itself-which implicates the framework of New York v. Plaintiffs' claims are not so described or delimited, however, and it is their allegations that control in resolving the present motion. Like the arguments of their motion, defendants' objections generally attempt to characterize plaintiffs' claims regarding defendants' conduct of the search of their premises as challenges to the inspection report generated as a result thereof. So thoroughly has the magistrate judge considered and analyzed the issues raised by and inherent to the motion that any further exegesis on my part would constitute little more than a festooned reiteration of her excellent work. The recommendation is exhaustively detailed and cogently reasoned. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the recommendation, the objections, and the applicable caselaw. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, and deny the apposite motion to dismiss in all but the single particular suggested by the magistrate judge.Īs required by 28 U.S.C. Magistrate Judge , filed January 20, 2015. *1 The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge , 1 filed Januand (2) defendants' corresponding Objections to the Recommendation of U.S. ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE A District Court judge approved and adopted these recommendations and denied defendant’s objections to the recommendations. In all other aspects, the Magistrate recommended that the Motion be denied. US Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that, to the extent the Motion argued that the declaratory judgment claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing, the Motion be granted in part and denied in part and that the declaratory judgment claims asserted by Plaintiffs Nick Sculac, Julie Walker, and Jules Investment, Inc. § 1983 claim against the Inspector Defendants “because they acted under color of state law when they induced the deputies to cut the chains and enter the premises ” a declaratory judgment “declaring that Thompson inappropriately overrode the medical advice of Big Cats' veterinarians and declaring that, in the future, the USDA cannot force Sculac to choose between following the medical advice of his veterinarians and the mandates of a USDA inspector ” and a declaratory judgment that the USDA must follow its own regulations and that it cannot conduct a warrantless search of the Big Cats facility outside of ‘normal business hours' solely because an inspector ‘want to’ or because an inspector subjectively ‘believe necessary to determine the welfare status of the animals.' ” In addition to declaratory relief, Plaintiffs also sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment interest.

1447 serenity circle free#

The claims included a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures a 42 U.S.C. In an amended complaint, Plaintiffs asserted four claims against Defendants relating to a United States Department of Agriculture inspection of Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc.