Acuna Carmona v. Warden, FCI Sandstone
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-00581
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Acuna Carmona v. Warden, Judge Menendez accepted an unopposed recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the case.
Felix Alberto Acuna Carmona, whose habeas petition was denied, and Warden, FCI Sandstone, the respondent.
What happened
In Acuna Carmona v. Warden, FCI Sandstone, a magistrate judge recommended denying Felix Alberto Acuna Carmona’s petition and dismissing the case. The deadline for objections passed without any filing from him.
The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying legal grounds.
Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the matter. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Acuna Carmona v. Warden, FCI Sandstone · No. 0:25-cv-00581
- Katherine Menendez
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
Felix Alberto Acuna Carmona filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation, or R&R, on March 14, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied and the action dismissed. The deadline for objections was March 28, 2025. Acuna Carmona did not file objections by that deadline or anything afterward.
Court’s Review
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the R&R for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation or the record. After reviewing the R&R and the record, the court found no error. The order does not address the underlying grounds for the habeas petition.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the March 14, 2025 R&R, denied Acuna Carmona’s habeas petition, and dismissed the matter. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.