Martin v. Department of Corrections et al, No. 4:2018cv00149 - Document 5 (D. Mont. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. COA DENIED. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 12/28/2018. Mailed to Martin (TAG)

Download PDF
Martin v. Department of Corrections et al Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION JASON BRYAN MARTIN, CV-18-149-GF-BMM Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondents. United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and Recommendations in this matter on December 4, 2018. (Doc. 4.) Judge Johnston granted Petitioner Jason Bryan Martin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4 at 1-2.) Judge Johnston recommended that Martin’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 4 at 4.) Judge Johnston recommended that the Clerk of Court enter a judgment of dismissal. (Doc. 4 at 5.) Judge Johnston further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied. (Doc. 4 at 5.) Neither party filed objections. The Court reviews findings and recommendations not objected to 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). The Court finds no error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations and adopts them in full. IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS ORDERED that Martin’s petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter, by separate document, a judgment of dismissal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. DATED this 28th day of December, 2018. 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.