Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2024

Stewart v. Eischen

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:24-cv-03432
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stewart v. Eischen, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied Stewart’s petition, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

Who this affects

Fredrick Stewart’s habeas petition was denied, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. The respondent was B. Eischen, FPC Duluth.

What happened

Fredrick Stewart filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against B. Eischen, FPC Duluth. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended a result on September 9, 2024, and no party objected.

The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It accepted the recommendation, denied Stewart’s petition, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

In Stewart v. Eischen, Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion excerpt does not explain the recommendation’s underlying reasoning.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Stewart v. Eischen · No. 0:24-cv-03432
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Oct. 16, 2024

Background

Fredrick Stewart was the petitioner, and B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, was the respondent. Stewart filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on September 9, 2024.

Court’s review

No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Under the court’s stated procedure, the recommendation was therefore reviewed for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error based on the case records and proceedings.

Ruling

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Fredrick Stewart’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the matter with prejudice, meaning the matter was dismissed in a way that bars refiling the same matter. The court ordered that judgment be entered.

The provided opinion text does not state the underlying reason for denying the petition or explain the Report and Recommendation’s analysis.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.