Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 18, 2025

Garrett v. Eischen

Judge
Jeffrey Bryan
Docket
0:25-cv-02128
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Garrett v. Eischen, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied Garrett’s habeas petition, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Detonya Garrett, whose habeas petition was denied, and Bill Eischen, identified as the Federal Prison Camp Duluth warden or current acting warden.

What happened

Garrett v. Eischen involved Detonya Garrett’s petition asking the court for habeas relief. The case was brought against Bill Eischen, identified as the Federal Prison Camp Duluth warden or current acting warden.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and dismissing the case. Garrett did not object to that recommendation before the deadline.

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Garrett v. Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-02128
Judge
Jeffrey M. Bryan
Date
June 18, 2025

Background

Detonya Garrett filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Bill Eischen, identified in the caption as the Federal Prison Camp Duluth warden or current acting warden. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation dated May 22, 2025. It recommended that the court deny Garrett’s petition and dismiss the action.

Review of the Recommendation

Garrett did not object to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for objections had passed. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.

Disposition

The court ordered that the Report and Recommendation be adopted, Garrett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied, and the action be dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for denying the petition beyond adopting the Report and Recommendation after clear-error review.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.