Burd v. Kirkegard et al, No. 2:2014cv00026 - Document 9 (D. Mont. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 in full. Burd's Petition ( 1 , 2 , 7 ) is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 4/9/2015. Mailed to Burd. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Burd v. Kirkegard et al Doc. 9 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION APR 0 9 2015 Clerk, U.S District Court District Of Montana Missoula CV 14-26-BU-DWM SHANE LOUIS BURD, Petitioner, ORDER vs. LEROY KIRKEGARD and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents. Petitioner Shane Louis Burd filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is a state prisoner proceeding prose. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch entered findings and recommendations on March 6, 2015, recommending the Court deny Burd's petition for lack of merit. (Doc. 8.) Burd did not file objections to Judge Lynch's findings and recommendation. The Court reviews the findings and recommendations that are not specifically objected to for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists ifthe Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court 1 Dockets.Justia.com finds no clear error with Judge Lynch's determination that the petition should be denied. Given the nature of Burd's claims, he should proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Moreover, Burd cannot state a claim for violation of federal law. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED IN FULL. Burd' s Petition (Docs. 1, 2, 7) is DENIED for lack of merit. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter by separate document a judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A), the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith. Dated this i day of April, 2015. lloy, District Judge istrict Court 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.