Walton v. Rardin
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:25-cv-01673
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Walton v. Rardin, Judge Brasel denied Walton’s § 2241 petition and dismissed the action without prejudice after finding no clear error.
James Earl Walton’s § 2241 petition and action were denied and dismissed without prejudice; Jerad Rardin was the respondent.
What happened
In Walton v. Rardin, James Earl Walton filed a petition under a federal law that allows a person to challenge certain custody-related matters. The opinion does not describe the petition’s specific claims.
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel accepted the report and recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not state the reason the petition was denied or whether the court reached its merits.
The detailed version
- Walton v. Rardin · No. 0:25-cv-01673
- Nancy Brasel
- June 27, 2025
Background
James Earl Walton was the petitioner, and Jerad Rardin was the respondent. Walton filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying allegations or the relief Walton sought.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a May 22, 2025 report and recommendation. No party objected. Under the applicable review standard, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and accepted the report and recommendation. It denied Walton’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not state the basis for the denial or indicate that the court addressed the petition’s merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.