Raskiewicz v. United States, No. 9:2010cv00063 - Document 3 (D. Mont. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Petition 1 is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive petition. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 6/30/2010. Mailed to Raskiewicz. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Raskiewicz v. United States Doc. 3 8j. ""'lIrp IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR THE DISTRlCT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION JEREMY RASKlEWICZ, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. J 0 2010 () e.Du, .......y . . CV 1O-63-M-DWM-JCL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER --------------------) This matter was commenced by the filing of a "Petition and Brief' on June 2, 20 I O. Petitioner also filed two documents titled "Brief and Petition," and a letter to the Clerk of Court. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and Recommendations on June 3, 2010. Judge Lynch found that Raskiewicz did not file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee . Raskiewicz also failed to name a correct Respondent.. Judge Lynch also found that the instant petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. 28 U.s.C. § 2244(b); Burton v . Stewart, 549 U.S . 147, 149 (2007) (per curiam). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Petitioner Raskiewicz did not timely object and so has waived the right to de novo review ofthe record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court reviews the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the 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). I can find no clear error with Judge Lynch's recommendation (dkt #2) and therefore adopt it in full. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition (dkt #1) is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter by separate document a judgment in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to process the appeal if Raskiewicz files a notice of appeal. Dated this of June, 2010.

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.