Westphal v. Rardin
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-04075
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Westphal v. Rardin, Judge Magnuson denied Westphal’s petition and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Adam Westphal’s petition was denied, and his matter was dismissed without prejudice. Jared Rardin, identified as warden of FMC Rochester, was the respondent.
What happened
In Westphal v. Rardin, Adam Westphal filed a petition against Jared Rardin, identified as warden of FMC Rochester. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the matter without prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Westphal did not object to the recommendation. Judge Magnuson therefore reviewed it for clear error and found no error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied Westphal’s petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Westphal v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-04075
- Paul Magnuson
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
Adam Westphal filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court review concerning custody, against Jared Rardin, warden of FMC Rochester. The matter came before the district court on a report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.
The report and recommendation advised dismissing the matter without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not explain the underlying reason the court lacked jurisdiction. Westphal did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed.
Court’s Review
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of the disputed issues. The court stated that it found no error—clear or otherwise—in Magistrate Judge Wright’s reasoning.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the report and recommendation, denied Westphal’s petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The court also directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.