Del Real v. Eischen
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-00042
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Del Real v. Eischen, Judge Menendez denied Del Real’s habeas petition without prejudice as moot after accepting an unopposed recommendation.
Miguel Eduardo Del Real’s habeas petition was denied without prejudice as moot; the opinion does not identify any further effect on the parties.
What happened
In Del Real v. Eischen, Miguel Eduardo Del Real asked the court for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for the petition or why it was moot.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. No one filed objections within the allowed time, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the recommendation in full and denied the petition without prejudice as moot. The court ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Del Real v. Eischen · No. 0:24-cv-00042
- Katherine Menendez
- Dec. 13, 2024
Background
Miguel Eduardo Del Real was the petitioner, and B. Eischen was the respondent. Del Real filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or explain the circumstances making it moot.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation dated July 23, 2024. No objections were filed within the permitted time.
Because there were no specific objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court stated that it carefully reviewed the recommendation and the record and found no error, clear or otherwise. It accepted the recommendation in full.
Ruling
The court ordered that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied without prejudice as moot. “Without prejudice” means the order does not state that the petition is permanently barred from being brought again, while “moot” means the court treated the dispute as no longer requiring a ruling. The court also ordered that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.