Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled July 9, 2025

Ohlmeier v. Rardin

Judge
Jeffrey Bryan
Docket
0:24-cv-04382
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ohlmeier v. Rardin, Judge Bryan adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied two petition portions, and directed the parties to continue on the rest.

Who this affects

Todd Allen Ohlmeier, the petitioner, had two portions of his petition denied; the remaining portions were left to proceed as directed by the magistrate judge.

What happened

In Ohlmeier v. Rardin, Todd Allen Ohlmeier challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ handling of his sentencing judgment and alleged that he was denied procedural fairness because he could not use the FMC-Rochester commissary.

A magistrate judge recommended denying those two parts of the petition. Neither side objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error.

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, and denied those two portions of the petition. The parties must proceed as directed by the magistrate judge regarding the petition’s remaining portions.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ohlmeier v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-04382
Judge
Jeffrey M. Bryan
Date
July 9, 2025

Background

Todd Allen Ohlmeier filed a petition against Warden Jared Rardin. Ohlmeier represented himself. The petition included a claim that the Bureau of Prisons had inappropriately amended his sentencing judgment and a procedural due process claim based on his alleged inability to use the FMC-Rochester commissary.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the two described portions of Ohlmeier’s petition be denied. Neither party filed a timely objection.

Court’s Review and Ruling

Because there were no timely objections, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted it. The court ordered that the portion alleging an improper amendment to Ohlmeier’s sentencing judgment was denied and that the portion alleging denial of procedural due process concerning the FMC-Rochester commissary was also denied. The court stated that the parties must proceed as directed by the magistrate judge regarding the remaining portions of the petition. The opinion does not describe those remaining portions or their status beyond that instruction.

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.