DeRosier v. Kirkegard et al, No. 9:2013cv00215 - Document 15 (D. Mont. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 in full. DeRosier's petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED for lack of merit. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 11/25/2014. Mailed to DeRosier. (TAG, )

Download PDF
DeRosier v. Kirkegard et al Doc. 15 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION LOUIS DeROSIER, NOV 2 5 2014 Cieri<, u.s. District Court District Of Montana Missoula CV 13-215-M-DWM-JCL Petitioner, ORDER vs. LEROY KIRKEGARD; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents. This matter comes before this Court on Petitioner Louis DeRosier's writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. DeRosier is a state prison proceeding pro so. United States Magistrate Judge Lynch recommends denying the petition on the merits and denying a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 14.) DeRosier is entitled to de novo review of the specified findings or recommendations to which he objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews the Findings and Recommendations not specifically 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). DeRosier has not filed any objections and the Court fmds no clear error in Judge Lynch's determination that the Montana Supreme Court's conclusion that DeRosier did not show sufficient prejudice was reasonable and that DeRosier's remaining claims lack merit. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 14) are ADOPTED IN FULL. DeRosier's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED for lack of merit. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter by separate document a judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Dated thi~y of November, 2014. oy, District Judge .strict Court 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.