Kuzmenko v. Warden, FCI Waseca
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-04381
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Kuzmenko v. Warden, Judge Magnuson denied the federal detention petition and dismissed the matter because its claims could not be decided through habeas proceedings.
Vera Kuzmenko's federal custody petition was denied, and the matter was dismissed; the Warden, FCI Waseca, was the respondent.
What happened
Vera Kuzmenko petitioned under a federal law allowing people in federal custody to challenge their detention. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Kuzmenko was not eligible for transfer to supervised release and her request about prerelease custody could not be brought in a habeas petition.
Kuzmenko did not object to the recommendation before the deadline. Without objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the matter. The order does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Kuzmenko v. Warden, FCI Waseca · No. 0:24-cv-04381
- Paul Magnuson
- Jan. 31, 2025
Background
Vera Kuzmenko filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law that permits certain challenges to federal custody. The matter came before District Judge Paul A. Magnuson on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated January 3, 2025.
The recommendation advised dismissing the petition for two reasons: Kuzmenko was not eligible to be transferred to supervised release, and her claim concerning prerelease custody was not a claim that could be brought through a habeas petition.
Review of the Recommendation
Kuzmenko did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed. The court therefore reviewed the unobjected-to recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. The court found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Disposition
The court adopted the report and recommendation. It denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the matter. The order does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.