Amuri v. Garland
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-01941
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Amuri v. Garland, Judge Menendez denied Amuri’s petition without prejudice as moot, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Jafari Amuri’s habeas petition was denied without prejudice as moot; the order also affected Merrick Garland and the other named respondents by resolving the petition in their favor without reaching its underlying issues.
What happened
Jafari Amuri filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Merrick Garland and other respondents. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended resolving the petition, and no one filed objections within the allowed time. Judge Menendez reviewed the recommendation for clear error and accepted it in full.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered that the petition be denied without prejudice as moot and directed that judgment be entered. The order did not decide the petition’s underlying legal issues.
The detailed version
- Amuri v. Garland · No. 0:24-cv-01941
- Katherine Menendez
- Dec. 16, 2024
Background
Jafari Amuri was the petitioner, and Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States, and other respondents were named in the case. Amuri filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court relief concerning the matter identified in the petition. The opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying allegations or the relief sought.
Report and Recommendation
The matter came before the district court on a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, dated August 29, 2024. No objections were filed within the permitted period. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues. The court found no error, clear or otherwise, and accepted the recommendation in full.
Ruling
The court ordered that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be DENIED without prejudice as moot. The court also ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion does not explain why the petition was moot and does not address the petition’s underlying legal questions. Because the court resolved the matter on mootness rather than deciding those questions, this is a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.