After discussing the background and procedural history of Stock's underlying case and subsequent appeals, Judge Johnston conducted an independent review of Stock's petition and found that he had alleged two general claims: (1) ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel ("Claim 1") and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel ("Claim 2"). 2000).īefore turning to Stock's objections, the Court will briefly summarize the Findings and Recommendations. "Clear error exists if the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v.
This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. Stock, represented by counsel, timely filed objections and is therefore entitled to de novo review of those Findings and Recommendations to which he specifically objects. United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered his Order, Findings and Recommendations in this matter on February 2, 2016, recommending dismissal and denial of specific portions of Petitioner Donald Rudolph Stock's ("Stock") application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court
0 kommentar(er)
