Stang v. Kirkegard et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 in full. This action is DISMISSED AS MOOT. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 5/1/2015. Mailed to Stang. (TAG, )

Download PDF
FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION APR 3 0 2015 Clerk, U.S District Court District Of Montana Missoula CV 14-128-BLG-DLC-CSO LENNY STANG, Petitioner, ORDER vs. LEROY KIRKEGARD; TIM FOX, Attorney General of the State of Montana, Respondents. United States Magistrate Carolyn S. Ostby entered her findings and recommendations in this case on March 13, 2015, recommending dismissal of Petitioner Stang's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Stang failed to timely object to the findings and recommendations, and so waived the right to de nova review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). The Court will therefore review the record for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court adopts Judge Ostby's findings and recommendations in full. Judge Ostby found, and this Court agrees, that Stang's habeas action was mooted by the credit he received on his probation violation sentence, which -1- amounted to the same number of days he alleges he was wrongfully imprisoned. Consequently, there is no constitutional violation in need of a remedy here. See Spencer v. Lemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). IT IS ORDERED that Judge Ostby's findings and recommendations (Doc. 8) are ADOPTED IN FULL. This action is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall enter by separate document a judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner Stang. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. DATED this 3D~ay of April, 2015. Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court -2-

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?