Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:24-cv-02657
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Blackwell dismissed Sharease Harrison’s habeas petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Sharease Harrison’s § 2241 habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice; the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Waseca FCI were the named respondents.
What happened
In Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Sharease Harrison filed a petition under federal law seeking a court order concerning her custody. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.
A magistrate judge recommended resolving the case. No party filed timely objections, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Blackwell accepted the recommendation and dismissed Harrison’s petition without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court ordered judgment to be entered.
The detailed version
- Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · No. 0:24-cv-02657
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Oct. 23, 2024
Background
Sharease Harrison filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Waseca FCI. The opinion does not provide the petition’s underlying allegations or explain the events leading to the failure-to-prosecute finding.
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on August 7, 2024. No objections were filed within the permitted time.
Court’s review
Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.
Disposition
The court accepted the August 7, 2024 Report and Recommendation. It dismissed Harrison’s petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, expressly stating that the dismissal was without prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered. The order did not decide the underlying habeas claim on its merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.