IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DUSTIN JAMES, individually, 2:15-CV-00919-SU

and LORIEN JAMES, individually,

and as husband and wife, ORDER

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

 

JOHN LINDSTROM, individually and

as Building Official for Wallowa

County and the City of Pendleton;

MICHELE YOUNG, individually and 

as City Administrator for the City

of Enterprise; RONNIE NEIL,

individually and as Superintendent

of Public Works for the City of

Enterprise; the CITY OF ENTERPRISE,

a municipal subdivision of the

State of Oregon; WALLOWA COUNTY,

a municipal subdivision of the 

State of Oregon; JOHN DOES 1-5

(fictitiously designated), 

individually and as agents,

officers, and/or employees of

Wallowa County and/or the City of

Enterprise; JANE DOES 1-5

(fictitiously designated), 

individually and as agents, officers,

and/or employees of Wallowa County

and/or the City of Enterprise,

 Defendants.

1 - ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-00919-SU Document 64 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 5
BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and

Recommendation (#56) on June 9, 2016, in which she recommends the

Court grant Defendants' Motions (#23, #32) for Summary Judgment

as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims; dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal and

state constitutional claims with prejudice; and dismiss

Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, quiet title, ORICO,

declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief without prejudice. 

The Magistrate Judge also recommends the Court deny Plaintiffs’

Motion (#51) to Strike. 

Plaintiffs filed timely Objections (#61) to the Magistrate

Judges’ Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before

this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make

a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

DISCUSSION

The claims of Plaintiffs Justin James and Lorien James arise

2 - ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-00919-SU Document 64 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 5
out of a dispute concerning Defendant City of Enterprise’s

easement for an underground waterline on Plaintiffs’ property and

Plaintiffs’ development of their property in relation to that

easement.

In their Complaint Plaintiffs allege claims against Wallowa

County; the City of Enterprise; John Lindstrom, the County

Building Official; Michele Young, the City Administrator; Ronnie

Neil, the City’s Superintendent of Public Works; and 10

unidentified “Doe” defendants. Plaintiffs assert nine claims

against Defendants as follows:

1. Claim One against Defendants City of Enterprise, Neil,

and Young: For violation of Plaintiffs’ due-process rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that Defendants

deprived Plaintiffs of their property rights and liberty

interests by directing Defendant Lindstrom to issue a StopWork Order.

2. Claim Two against Defendants Wallowa County and

Lindstrom: For violation of Plaintiffs’ due-process right

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that Defendants

deprived Plaintiffs of their property rights and liberty

interests by issuing a Stop-Work Order. 

3. Claim Three against Defendants Wallowa County and

Lindstrom: For violation of Plaintiffs’ due-process rights

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution on the grounds that Defendants did not

provide prior notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to

contest the Stop-Work Order.

4. Claim Four against Defendants City of Enterprise, Neil

and Young: For violation of Plaintiffs’ due-process rights

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution on the ground that Defendants acted to

prevent Plaintiffs from developing their land without a

finding that Plaintiffs had violated applicable laws,

regulations, or building codes.

3 - ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-00919-SU Document 64 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 5
5. Claim Five against Defendants City of Enterprise, Neil,

Young, Wallowa County, and Lindstrom: For violation of

Oregon’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act

(Or. Rev. Stats. § 166.715, et seq.) on the ground that

Defendants acted together to deprive Plaintiffs of their

property rights.

6. Claim Six against all Defendants: For negligence on the

ground that Defendants’ conduct caused damage to Plaintiffs.

7. Claim Seven against Defendants City of Enterprise, Neil,

Young, Wallowa County,and Lindstrom: For retaliation under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Plaintiffs for exercising, among

other things, their rights of free speech and their right to

develop their private property.

8. Claim Eight against Defendants City of Enterprise and

Wallowa County: For inverse condemnation for temporary

takings under the Oregon Constitution and the United States

Constitution on the ground that Defendants interfered with

Plaintiffs’ use of their property as a result of the StopWork Order.

9. Claim Nine against Defendants City of Enterprise and

Wallowa County: To quiet title under Oregon Revised Statute 

§ 105.605 and for declaratory relief and injunctive relief

under Oregon Revised Statute § 28.010 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-

2202.

The Magistrate Judge recommends this Court dismiss with

prejudice Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and

Eighth Claims and dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Fifth,

Sixth, and Ninth Claims (the state-law claims). 

Plaintiffs object only to the factual findings of the 

Magistrate Judge as to Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Fifth, Sixth,

Seventh, and Ninth Claims and contend those Findings “are clearly

disputed” and without support in the record. Thus, Plaintiffs

assert Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on those

Claims because a genuine dispute of material fact exists.

4 - ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-00919-SU Document 64 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 5
After reviewing the record, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’

recitation and characterization of the facts do not raise a

genuine dispute as to any material fact, and, therefore,

Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of

Plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, after carefully considering

Plaintiffs’ Objections, the Court concludes they do not provide a

basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. 

The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the

record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings and

Recommendation (#56) and, therefore, GRANTS Defendants’ Motions

(#23, #32) for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third,

Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims and DISMISSES without

prejudice Plaintiffs’ Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Claims. The Court

also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion (#51) to Strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

5 - ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-00919-SU Document 64 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 5