Kenfield v. Fender et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 in full. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 12/4/2017. Mailed to Kenfield (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION

KAL CLAYTON KENFIELD,

CV 16-119-GF-DLC-JTJ

Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
DOUGLAS FENDER; ATTORNEY
GENDERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA,
Respondents.
On October 10, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston
entered his Findings and Recommendations, recommending that PlaintiffKal C.
Kenfield's ("Kenfield") Petition be denied on the merits. (Doc. 10 at 18.)
Kenfield timely filed an objection to the findings and recommendations, and so is
entitled to de novo review of those findings and recommendations to which he
specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 )(C). This Court reviews for clear error
those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.
1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists ifthe Court is
left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

-1-

United States v. Syrax, 235 F .3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Judge Johnston concluded, and this Court agrees, that all claims brought in
Kenfield's Petition be dismissed. Having reviewed Kenfield's objection, the
Court finds that he fails to present any new evidence and reiterates the same facts
and arguments already made and properly rejected by Judge Johnston. Instead,
Kenfield's objections are merely rehashed arguments of the same allegations made
in his initial Petition. (Doc. 1.)
Accordingly, the Court reviews Judge Johnston's Findings and
Recommendations for clear error. Finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 10) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
1. The Petition (Docs. 1, 4, 8) are DENIED on the merits.
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter by separate document a judgment in favor
of Respondents and against Petitioner.
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DATED this

4 +~day of December,

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-2-