Moreno v. Eischen
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-00209
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Moreno v. Eischen, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied Moreno’s habeas petition, denied fee-free filing as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Eduardo Moreno’s habeas petition was denied, his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot, and his action was dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Moreno v. Eischen involved Eduardo Moreno’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal request challenging detention. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended denying the petition, dismissing the matter, and denying Moreno’s request to proceed without paying court fees or costs.
Neither party objected to the recommendation before the deadline. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition, denied Moreno’s fee-waiver application as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Moreno v. Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-00209
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
Eduardo Moreno, who represented himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, whose February 12, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommended denying the habeas petition, dismissing the matter, and denying the fee-waiver application.
Review of the Recommendation
Neither party filed a timely objection. Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Moreno’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, denied his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.