George v. Mahoney et al
Filing
6
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. Petitioner George's Petition 1 is DENIED on the merits, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 5/13/2011. Mailed to George. (TAG, )
FILED
MAY 13 2011
PATRICK E. DUFFY, CLERK
BynDEi:l!P\1TY;;n:;:;rC:;;LE;;;RvK.7:MI~SS;;'OUlA;:;-::-:::IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
DONNY RAY GEORGE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et aI.,
Respondents.
CV 11-59-M-DWM-JCL
ORDER
----------------------)
Petitioner George, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges Detendants violated his due
process rights, lack jurisdiction over him, and revoked his suspended sentence
based on racial discrimination. Magistrate Judge Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendation in this matter on May 9, 2011. After assessing the merits to all
three claims, Judge Lynch found the petition frivolous, and recommended it be
I
denied as such.
Petitioner timely objected to the Findings and Recommendation on May 12,
2011. He is therefore entitled to de novo review of the specified findings or
recommendations to which he objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). The portions of the
Findings and Recommendation not specifically objected to will be reviewed for
clear error. McDonnell Dou!.\las Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach .. Inc., 656 F.2d
1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Despite Petitioner's objections, I agree with Judge
Lynch's analysis and conclusions. Because the parties are familiar with the factual
and procedural background, it will not be restated here.
Petitioner only objects to Judge Lynch's findings on his due process claim.
He claims his two sentences are to run consecutively, yet he never entered a
supervision agreement on his first sentence, only the second. Judge Lynch found
the judgment imposed clearly stated that the sentences for both cases run
consecutively for a total of twenty years imprisonment with twelve years
suspended, and Petitioner has received nothing to the contrary. In his objection,
Petitioner refines his claim. He now argues that the Department of Corrections
violated Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011 by not having him complete his
supervised release on the first sentence before having him begin his second
sentence. The statute, which requires the Department to supervise probationers,
2
does not require consecutive terms of supervised release be formally separated.
As such, I agree with Judge Lynch that this claim fails on the merits.
I find no clear error in Judge Lynch's remaining findings and
recommendations, and adopt them (diet #4) in full.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner George's Petition
(diet #1) is DENIED on the merits. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in
favor of Respondents and against Petitioner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Dated this ~""day of May, 2011.
/
/
!loy, District Judge
istrict Court
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?