Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 22, 2024

Smith v. Gordon

Judge
Jeffrey Bryan
Docket
0:24-cv-02714
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Smith v. Gordon, Judge Bryan denied Smith’s custody petition for failing to exhaust state remedies and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Who this affects

Ricardo Dale Smith’s amended petition and related motions were denied, and his action was dismissed without prejudice. Andrew Gordon was the named defendant.

What happened

In Smith v. Gordon, Ricardo Dale Smith asked the federal court to review his custody-related petition. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition because Smith had not completed the required state-court proceedings.

Neither party objected to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. It adopted the recommendation.

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan denied Smith’s amended petition, denied three other motions as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying custody claim because Smith had not exhausted state remedies.

The detailed version

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

Case
Smith v. Gordon · No. 0:24-cv-02714
Judge
Jeffrey M. Bryan
Date
Nov. 22, 2024

Background

Ricardo Dale Smith filed an amended habeas petition, meaning a petition asking a federal court to review a custody-related claim. The court considered a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins on October 7, 2024. The recommendation stated that Smith’s petition should be denied because he had not exhausted available state-court remedies. It also recommended denying Smith’s remaining motions as moot, meaning the court no longer needed to decide them.

Review of the Recommendation

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for objections had passed. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. It found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.

Ruling

The court denied Smith’s amended petition. It denied as moot Smith’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, his “Motion/Affidavit,” and his request to reconsider an earlier order. The court also dismissed the action without prejudice, which means the order did not bar refiling. Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan entered judgment accordingly. Because the petition was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies, the court did not reach the underlying custody-related claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.