Ellenburg v. Law et al, No. 4:2009cv00013 - Document 43 (D. Mont. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER denying 40 Motion to Appoint Counsel and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re Plaintiff's Amended Motion and Order to Proceed 40 and Motion for Declaratory Relief 42 . Recommendation: The motions should be DENIED. Objections to F&R due by 1/8/2010. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 12/22/2009. Copy mailed to Ellenburg. (ASG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ellenburg v. Law et al Doc. 43 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION MICHAEL ELLENBURG, Cause No. CV 09-00013-GF-SEH-RKS Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE vs. WARDEN SAM LAW, et. al., Defendants. This matter was closed on December 4, 2009 yet Plaintiff continues to file numerous post-judgment motions. Plaintiff's current motions do not change the Court's analysis of the dismissal of this matter. Plaintiff raised no new arguments or evidence to disturb the Court's prior rulings in this matter. In particular, Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief seeks injunctive relief regarding claims not raised in the original or amended pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Court Doc. 40) is DENIED. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's Amended Motion and Order to Proceed (Court Doc. 40) and Motion for Declaratory Relief (Court Doc. 42) should be DENIED. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE –CV 09-00013-GFSEH-RKS/ PAGE 1 Dockets.Justia.com NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Plaintiff may serve and file written objections to these Findings and Recommendations within fourteen (14) days of the date entered as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Any such filing should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." A district judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the Findings and Recommendations to which objection is made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Findings and Recommendations. Failure to timely file written objections may bar a de novo determination by the district judge and may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). This order is not immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a)(1), should not be filed until entry of the District Court's final judgment. DATED this 22nd day of December, 2009. /s/ Keith Strong Keith Strong United States Magistrate Judge ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE –CV 09-00013-GFSEH-RKS/ PAGE 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.
