De Los Santos-Hernandez v. Rardin
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-03861
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In De Los Santos-Hernandez v. Rardin, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition and hearing request, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
Felix De Los Santos-Hernandez’s habeas petition and request for an evidentiary hearing were denied, and his matter was dismissed without prejudice; the order identifies Jared Rardin as the defendant.
What happened
De Los Santos-Hernandez v. Rardin concerned Felix De Los Santos-Hernandez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under federal law. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.
A magistrate judge recommended resolving the petition, and no party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition, denied the request for an evidentiary hearing, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
The detailed version
- De Los Santos-Hernandez v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-03861
- Eric Tostrud
- June 2, 2025
Background
Felix De Los Santos-Hernandez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not explain the factual or legal basis of the petition.
Review of the Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on April 30, 2025. No party objected. Under the applicable rule, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation.
Rulings
Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that:
- The Report and Recommendation was accepted. - Felix De Los Santos-Hernandez’s § 2241 habeas petition was denied. - His request for an evidentiary hearing was denied. - The matter was dismissed without prejudice.
The order does not state the reason the petition was denied or otherwise analyze the petition’s merits. Because the court adopted the recommendation after clear-error review without merits analysis, this summary classifies the order as procedural.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.