Jade Landers v. Custer County; Custer County Sheriff’s Department; and Sheriff...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION JADE LANDERS, V 24-38-BLG-SPW-TJC Plaintiff, VS. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS CUSTER COUNTY; CUSTER AND RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and SHERIFF BRANDON KELM in his official individual capacity, Defendants.

United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan filed his Findings and Recommendations on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) on December 19, 2025. (Doc. 62). Judge Cavan recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion on Plaintiff Jade Lander’s claims for negligent and intentional inflection of emotional distress (Count 3) and negligence (Count 4). Judge Cavan further recommended that the Court deny the Motion on Lander’s § 1983 claim (Count 1) and his Montana State Constitution violations claim (Count 2) because Defendants did not meet the final judgment element required by their res judicata theory. (Ud. at 10).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of the Magistrate’s findings and recommendations. When neither party objects, the Court reviews the Magistrate’s findings and recommendations for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the 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).

Here, neither party filed an objection, and the Court does not find that Judge Cavan committed clear error. As far as the Court is aware, the state court’s review of Lander’s Human Rights Commission matter is not complete. (See Doc. 52 at 2).

As such, the Court agrees with Judge Cavan that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment predicated on the doctrine of res judicata for Counts 1 and 2 should be denied because an incomplete judicial review does not provide preclusive effect under Montana law.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) The proposed Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 62) entered by United States Magistrate Judge Cavan are ADOPTED IN FULL; and (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is DENIED as to Counts 1 and 2 and GRANTED as to Counts 3 and 4.

DATED this_G/day of January, 2026.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge