Jones v. Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes, No. 4:2015cv00086 - Document 7 (D. Mont. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER adopting Findings and Recommendations 6 in full. Petition 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 3/2/2016. Mailed to Jones. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Jones v. Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION HOWARD JONES, CV 15-86-GF-BMM-JTJ Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX TRIBES, Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and Recommendations in this matter on February 5, 2016. (Doc. 6.) Neither party filed objections. When a party makes no objections, the Court need not review de novo the proposed Findings and Recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149– 152 (1986). The Court will review Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations, however, for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Petitioner Howard Jones is a tribal prisoner proceeding pro se. (Doc. 6.) Judge Johnston ordered Jones to show what steps he had taken to exhaust his tribal remedies. (Id.) Judge Johnston advised Jones that his failure to respond to the Dockets.Justia.com Court’s order would result in a recommendation that his petition should be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.) Jones failed to timely respond to the Order. His petition should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust. There exists no clear error in any of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jones’ petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to exhaust tribal remedies. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter, by separate document, a judgment of dismissal. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2016.

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.