Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 2, 2024

Hamer v. Segal

Judge
Jeffrey Bryan
Docket
0:24-cv-02886
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hamer v. Segal, Judge Bryan dismissed Hamer’s petition as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice after she received the relief she sought.

Who this affects

Rhonda A. Hamer’s petition was dismissed as moot, and the action was dismissed without prejudice; Michael Segal was the respondent.

What happened

Rhonda A. Hamer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Michael Segal, identified as a warden. The petition sought relief that Hamer later received.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition as moot. Neither party objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error.

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, dismissed Hamer’s petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hamer v. Segal · No. 0:24-cv-02886
Judge
Jeffrey M. Bryan
Date
Dec. 2, 2024

Background

Rhonda A. Hamer, representing herself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Michael Segal, Warden. The Report and Recommendation stated that Hamer had received the relief sought in her petition.

Recommendation and Review

United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on October 24, 2024, recommending that the petition be dismissed as moot. Neither party filed objections, and the objection deadline passed. Under the applicable review standard, the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed Hamer’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as moot. The court also dismissed the action without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.

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.