McKay v. Clay County Correction Facility
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-01692
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In McKay v. Clay County Correction Facility, Judge Bryan dismissed McKay’s custody petition without prejudice as moot after adopting an unobjected-to recommendation.
Cory Allen McKay’s petition was dismissed without prejudice; Clay County Correction Facility remained the respondent. The order did not decide the underlying custody issue.
What happened
In McKay v. Clay County Correction Facility, Cory Allen McKay filed a petition seeking a court order concerning his custody. He represented himself, and the facility was represented by counsel.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition as moot. Neither side objected to that recommendation before the deadline.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- McKay v. Clay County Correction Facility · No. 0:25-cv-01692
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- July 2, 2025
Background
Cory Allen McKay, who represented himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Clay County Correction Facility. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a May 12, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be dismissed as moot. The opinion does not explain the circumstances making the petition moot.
Neither party filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. The respondent was represented by Thomas R. Ragatz of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.
Court’s Review
Because no timely objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error based on the case record.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not state any additional conditions or limitations on refiling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.