Schaff v. Kirkegard et al
Filing
5
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 in full. Schaff's Petition is DISMISSED, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 5/15/2014. Mailed to Schaff. (TAG, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MONT ANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
CV-14-53-BLG-SPW
RICHARD DEAN SCHAFF,
ORDER
Petitioner,
vs.
LEROY KIRKEGARD;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MONTANA,
Res ondents.
Petitioner Richard Dean Schaff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
alleging the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole violated his constitutional rights
by denying his application for parole on January 31, 2014. (Doc. 1). United States
Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby entered Findings and Recommendations in this
matter on April24, 2014, recommending that Schaffs Petition be denied on the
merits. (Doc. 3). Schaff timely filed his objection and is therefore entitled to de
novo review of the specified findings and recommendations to which he objects.
28
u.s.c. § 636(b)(l).
Schaffs objection reiterates the basic allegation made in his petition: that is,
I
-----------------------------------
the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole violated his constitutional rights by
denying him parole. (Doc. 4). Montana Board of Pardons and Parole did nothing
illegal or unconstitutional when it exercised its broad discretion to determine
whether parole should be granted in Schaffs case, as explained in Judge Ostby's
findings and recommendation. (Doc. 3 at 2). Judge Ostby correctly pointed out
that all of the due process protections guaranteed to Schaff at the parole stage were
present and the federal due process requirements were satisfied. (Id. at 3, citing
Greenholtz v. Inmates ofNebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. I,
16 (1979)). Schaffs allegations lack merit under the law and will be dismissed.
After a de novo review of Judge Ostby's findings and recommendations,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
I.
Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 3) are
ADOPTED in full.
2.
Schaffs Petition is DISMISSED.
3.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the matter and enter judgment
pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Procedure.
4.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing§ 2254 Proceedings, a
certificate of appealability is DENIED. Schaff makes no substantial showing that
he was deprived of a constitutional right.
2
----------------------------------------
HOl10fableSUSal P. Watters,
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?