Cochran v. Respondent, No. 1:2011cv00002 - Document 6 (D. Mont. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. The Petition 1 is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 5/13/2011. Mailed to Cochran. (TAG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cochran v. Respondent Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES FiL[[) FOR THE DISTRICT OF M:(lJN'1RANA Rrl 13 BILLINGS DlVISI<FIl_ __ DEPUTY In Re CHAD J. COCHRAN, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) CV-ll-02-BLG-RFC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE --------------------) On April 6, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby entered Findings and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Ostby recommends this Court dismiss the Petition in this matter. Upon service of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, a party has 14 days to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections to the April 6, 2011 Findings and Recommendation were filed. The Court attempted to send Petitioner a copy of the Findings and Recommendation and the mail was returned as undeliverable. Failure to object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation waives all objections to the findings offact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,455 (9th Cir. 1999). However, failure to object does not relieve this Court of its Dockets.Justia.com burden to review de novo the magistrate judge's conclusions oflaw. Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989). After an extensive review of the record and applicable law, this Court finds Magistrate Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendation are well grounded in law and fact and adopts them in their entirety. The letter submitted by Cochran does not name a Respondent. He has neither paid his filing fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis. His action is also subject to dismissal under D.Mont.L.R. 5.5(b) for failure to provide a current mailing address. The Court has attempted to correspond with Petitioner on two occasions. In both instances, the mail was returned as undeliverable. A certificate of appealability is not required because this action could only proceed, if at all, under 25 U.S.C. § 1303. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal and close this matter accordingly. The Clerk ofCourtyFJall.!wtify the parties of the entry of this Order. . /2 't:'1'\ DATED the,L..L day ofMay, 2011. , / 4A'.· %CEBULL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
