Beadle v. Rardin
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:24-cv-02045
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Beadle v. Rardin, Judge Blackwell denied Jack Eugene Beadle’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after finding no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Jack Eugene Beadle’s § 2241 petition was denied. Jared Rardin, identified as the warden of Rochester FMC, was the respondent.
What happened
In Beadle v. Rardin, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a report and recommendation on June 20, 2024. No objection was filed within the permitted time.
The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It accepted the recommendation and denied Jack Eugene Beadle’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell issued the order on July 13, 2024. The order does not explain the underlying reasons for denying the petition because the supplied text does not include the report and recommendation.
The detailed version
- Beadle v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-02045
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- July 13, 2024
Background
Jack Eugene Beadle filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a report and recommendation on June 20, 2024. The opinion states that no party filed a timely objection.
Review of the Recommendation
Because no timely objection was filed, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court stated that it found no clear error.
Ruling
The court accepted the June 20, 2024 report and recommendation and denied Beadle’s § 2241 petition. It directed that judgment be entered. The supplied order does not state the report and recommendation’s reasoning or explain the underlying basis for denying the petition.
The order’s title says that the report and recommendation was accepted in part and modified in part, but the numbered directives state only that it was accepted; the order does not identify any modification.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.