Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 26, 2025

Contreras v. Vaught

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:25-cv-00456
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Contreras v. Vaught, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied Contreras’s petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice after finding no clear error.

Who this affects

The order directly affected petitioner Mario Contreras’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and this action. T. Vaught was identified as the respondent.

What happened

Mario Contreras filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 against T. Vaught, identified as a warden. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the reasons for the petition.

Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a report and recommendation on February 25, 2025. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Judge Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the report and recommendation, denied Contreras’s petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered.

The detailed version

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

Case
Contreras v. Vaught · No. 0:25-cv-00456
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Mar. 26, 2025

Background

Mario Contreras was the petitioner, and T. Vaught, identified as a warden, was the respondent. Contreras filed a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying claims or the grounds for relief.

Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on February 25, 2025. No party objected to it.

Court’s Review and Ruling

Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation. The court found no clear error and accepted the recommendation.

The court denied Contreras’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also ordered judgment to be entered. The opinion does not provide a merits analysis of the petition, so the stated ruling does not explain whether the court reached the underlying legal questions.

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.