Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 3, 2025

Critt v. Warden, MCF - Rush City

Judge
Laura Provinzino
Docket
0:24-cv-03828
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Critt v. Warden, Judge Provinzino denied Critt’s petition as too late, adopted the recommendation, and issued no certificate allowing an appeal.

Who this affects

Justin Marshall Critt: his petition was denied as untimely, and no certificate of appealability was issued.

What happened

Critt v. Warden, MCF – Rush City concerned Justin Marshall Critt’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended dismissing the petition as untimely.

No objections were filed, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.

Judge Laura M. Provinzino ordered that Critt’s petition be denied as untimely and that no certificate of appealability be issued. Judgment was entered accordingly.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Critt v. Warden, MCF - Rush City · No. 0:24-cv-03828
Judge
Laura M. Provinzino
Date
Mar. 3, 2025

Background

Justin Marshall Critt filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the petition should be dismissed as untimely, meaning filed after the applicable deadline.

Review and Ruling

Critt did not object to the Report and Recommendation within the permitted time. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, which means an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Finding no clear error, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation.

The court ordered that Critt’s petition be denied as untimely. It also ordered that no certificate of appealability be issued and directed that judgment be entered.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court denied the habeas petition as untimely without reaching the petition’s underlying legal claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.