Looman v. Mahoney, No. 2:2010cv00056 - Document 8 (D. Mont. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 in full. Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 11/30/2010. Mailed to Looman. (TAG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Looman v. Mahoney Doc. 8 , \) : t'l V IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANk' BUTTE DIVISION RONALD G. LOOMAN, Petitioner, No. CV-10-56-BU-SEH vs. ORDER WARDEN MIKE MAHONEY, Respondent. On November 17,2010, United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered his Findings and Recommendation l in this matter. On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed objections 2 to Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation. The Court has fully considered Plaintiffs motion and has reviewed de novo Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.c. ยง 636(b)(l). The Court has also fully considered each and all of the matters raised by Plaintiff in the objections filed on November 29, 20lO. Upon de novo review of the record, I find I Document No. 5 2 Document No.6 Dockets.Justia.com no error in Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation. I further find no merit in the matters raised in the November 29, 2010 objections warranting modification of Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation. I adopt the Findings and Recommendation in full. ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus3 is DISMISSED with prejudice because it is time-barred and procedurally barred. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time4 is DENIED as moot. 3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, as Plaintiffs petition is time-barred and DATED this barred. 2010. 3 Document No.4 4 Document No.7 2 fA'hl.I/-..) United States District Judge
]]>
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.
