From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawkins v. Mahoney

United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
Sep 5, 2006
CV 04-07-H-DWM (D. Mont. Sep. 5, 2006)

Opinion

CV 04-07-H-DWM.

September 5, 2006


ORDER


United States Magistrate Carolyn S. Ostby entered Findings and Recommendation in this matter on July 27, 2006. Plaintiff Hawkins did not file objections and is therefore not entitled to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court will review the Findings and Recommendation 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).

It is Judge Ostby's recommendation that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in full and judgment should be entered in favor of Defendants. I agree.

I find no clear error in Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendation (dkt #38) and I adopt them in full. Summary judgment is GRANTED to Defendants and the Clerk shall enter Judgment on Defendants' behalf.


Summaries of

Hawkins v. Mahoney

United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
Sep 5, 2006
CV 04-07-H-DWM (D. Mont. Sep. 5, 2006)
Case details for

Hawkins v. Mahoney

Case Details

Full title:SHERMAN P. HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. MIKE MAHONEY, Warden, Montana State…

Court:United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division

Date published: Sep 5, 2006

Citations

CV 04-07-H-DWM (D. Mont. Sep. 5, 2006)

Citing Cases

Patkins v. Tran

See Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702. He also has not submitted any declaration of any expert to attack the adequacy of…

Ditter v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.

Other courts have routinely found that dental implants are not a medical necessity and a plaintiff cannot…