Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2025

Dusek v. Vaught

Judge
Laura Provinzino
Docket
0:25-cv-00379
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Dusek v. Vaught, Judge Provinzino adopted the recommendation, denied expedited review as moot, and dismissed Dusek’s petition without prejudice as moot.

Who this affects

Matthew Dusek’s petition was dismissed without prejudice as moot, and his motion for expedited review and consideration was denied as moot. Tim Vaught was the named respondent.

What happened

In Dusek v. Vaught, the court considered a recommendation to dismiss Matthew Dusek’s petition for a court order concerning his detention. The recommendation came from Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins.

No one filed objections within the allowed time. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning it looked for an obvious mistake. The order also notes that mail sent to Dusek was returned and that he had not provided his new address.

Finding no clear error, Judge Laura M. Provinzino adopted the recommendation. She denied Dusek’s motion for expedited review as moot, meaning it no longer presented a live issue, and dismissed his petition without prejudice as moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dusek v. Vaught · No. 0:25-cv-00379
Judge
Laura M. Provinzino
Date
June 30, 2025

Background

Matthew Dusek filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court order concerning detention. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of the petition. The order states that no objections were filed within the permitted period.

The order notes that the copy of the Report and Recommendation sent to Dusek’s last known address was returned as undeliverable. The Clerk’s Office then attempted to mail it to the Federal Correctional Institution—Sandstone. The Report and Recommendation stated that Dusek had been moved to a Residential Reentry Center, and the order states that he had not provided his new address despite being required to do so.

Court’s Review

Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Laura M. Provinzino ordered that the Report and Recommendation be adopted. The court denied Dusek’s Motion for Expedited Review and Consideration as moot. It dismissed Dusek’s petition without prejudice as moot and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The order does not explain further why the petition was moot.

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.