Wizenburg v. Attorney General of the State of Montana, No. 9:2013cv00127 - Document 7 (D. Mont. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 in full. The 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 10/28/2013. Mailed to Wizenburg. (TAG, )

Download PDF

Wizenburg v. Attorney General of the State of Montana Doc. 7 FILL' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION NICHOLAS WIZENBURG, OCT 28 2013 ~ U.S. DiItrict Court 0iIIrfct Of Montana MIIIOUII CV 13-127-M-DWM-JCL Petitioner, ORDER vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent. Nicholas Winzenburg1 is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Magistrate Judge Lynch recommends denying the petition. Winzenburg has not objected to Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation. The Court reviews 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). 1 Petitioner give his name as "Winzenburg," "Wizenburg," and "Walker." He is listed by Montana State Prison as "Wizenburg." Because he appears to use "Winzenburg" more often, that is what he is called in the body of this Order. The case was filed under the name "Wizenburg." 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Court finds no clear error with Judge Lynch's determination that the Order of Revocation, Judgment and Sentence (Doc. 1-2) does not show any error and that the situation does not mandate credit for time served. See N. C. v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 718 (1969), overruled on other grounds, Ala. v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 798-800 (1989). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED IN FULL. Nicholas Winzenburg's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Dated this .$day of October, 2013. 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.