Bruse v. Green et al, No. 9:2013cv00313 - Document 6 (D. Mont. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. The petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 1/24/2014. Mailed to Bruse. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Bruse v. Green et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ROBERT BRUSE, FILED JAN 2 4 2014 Clerk. u.s. District Court District Of Montana Missoula CV 13-313-M-DWM-JCL Petitioner, ORDER vs. TOM GREEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents. Robert Bruse is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpust.mder 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Magistrate Judge Lynch recommends dismissing the petition. (Doc. 4.) Bruse timely filed an objection to Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation, (Doc. 5), and is therefore entitled to de novo review of the specified findings or recommendations to which he objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1). However, Bruse's "objection" states that he does not object to Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court reviews the Findings and Recommendations for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds no clear error with Judge Lynch's determination that remedies remain available to Bruse in the state courts, which must be exhausted before he may file with this Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED IN FULL. Robert Bruse's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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 thisJJlt;;;.y of January, 2014. United States 2 1 , District Judge trict Court

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.