Bertelsen v. Dunhop
Bertelsen v. Dunhop
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION
SHAYNE BERTELSEN, CV 21–124–GF–BMM–JTJ Plaintiff,
vs. ORDER
PETE DUNHOP, WARDEN; CATHERINE JOHSON, ASSISTANT WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered his Findings and Recommendations in this case on February 16, 2022. (Doc. 6). Judge Johnston recommended that the matter should be DISMISSED and that the dismissal should count as a strike pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Id. at 7–8). Neither party filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The parties have waived the right to de novo review thereof.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Absent objection, this Court reviews findings and recommendations 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 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. ORDER Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. This matter is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall close this matter and
enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. The Clerk of Court shall have the docket reflect that the Court certifies
pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. 3. The Clerk of Court shall have the docket reflect that this dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted.
DATED this 4th day of April, 2022. / NC f ~ MA UM
United States District Court
_2-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown