Ommundson v. Mahoney et al, No. 1:2009cv00150 - Document 16 (D. Mont. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full 13 . Claims 1, 2, and 3 are DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED as to Claims 1, 2, and 3. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 4/19/2010. Copy mailed to Ommundson. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Ommundson v. Mahoney et al Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTIUCT COURT FOR THE DISTIUCT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION FILE!) E!LlU;:;S 01: 2010 FlPi'l 19 Pf111202 BY _ _ _ __ DEPUTY GLERK-- DAVID OMMUNTISON, CV 09-1S0-BLG-RFC Plaintift: vs. MIKE MAHONEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondents. United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby has entered Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 13) on Petitioner David Ommundson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. With regard to Counts 1,2, and 3, Magistrate Judge Ostby recommends they be dismissed. Upon service of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, a palty has 14 days to me written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(J). Ommundson has med timely objections. Doc. 15. Accordingly, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Findings and Recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)( 1). Dockets.Justia.com After a de novo review, the Court determines the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ostby are well grounded in law and fact and HEREBY ORDERS they be adopted in their entirety. Based upon the record in Ommundson's indecent exposure case, it is apparent that Ommundson fully exposed himselfLO Officer Floth. A rational juror could have found that Ommundson's genitals were exposed, that he knew his nudity on a public trail would be an affront to persons using the trail, and he chose to be nude for the purpose of harassing persons using the traiL The jury's verdict and the Montana Supreme Court's decision were both more than reasonable. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claims 1,2, and 3 are DE;'IiIED. A certificate of appealability is DE;'IiIED as to Claims 1,2, and 3. / Th, C1"k Of,CrU notUy th, '",'i':.of th' m,king of thi, O,d". DATED this {. day of April, 20](1.? . 1 lUCHA F. CEBULL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG \ \. 2 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.