Plum v. Segal
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:24-cv-04175
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Plum v. Segal, Judge Bryan adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the habeas action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Jennifer A. Plum’s habeas action was dismissed without prejudice; Michael Segal was the respondent.
What happened
Jennifer A. Plum, who represented herself, filed a petition asking the federal court to review her custody. The respondent was Michael Segal, represented by attorneys from the United States Attorney’s Office.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Plum’s petition because the court lacked jurisdiction, meaning it did not have legal authority to decide it. Neither party objected to that recommendation by the deadline.
After reviewing the recommendation for clear error, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found none, adopted it, and dismissed the action without prejudice. This means the dismissal did not bar a later filing, although the order does not explain what filing might be available.
The detailed version
- Plum v. Segal · No. 0:24-cv-04175
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Jan. 27, 2025
Background
Jennifer A. Plum, self-represented, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court review of allegedly unlawful custody or detention, against Michael Segal. Segal was represented by Adam J. Hoskins and Ana H. Voss of the United States Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation on December 11, 2024. It recommended that Plum’s habeas petition be denied for lack of jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to decide the petition. Neither party filed a timely objection.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because no timely objection was filed, the court reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not state the underlying reason the court lacked jurisdiction.
Disposition
The action was dismissed without prejudice, and judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.