Rosales v. Segal
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-03138
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Rosales v. Segal, Judge Menendez denied Teri Lynn Rosales's petition challenging her sentence calculation and dismissed the case.
Federal prisoners who dispute how their sentences are being calculated by prison officials. This ruling confirms that courts will accept a magistrate judge's recommendation without independent review when no objections are filed.
What happened
In Rosales v. Segal (Case No. 24-CV-3138), federal prisoner Teri Lynn Rosales filed a petition asking the court to review how her sentence was being calculated by prison officials. She argued, in effect, that the calculation was wrong. A magistrate judge reviewed the matter and issued a recommendation finding that the warden had correctly calculated her sentence.
No objections were filed to the magistrate judge's recommendation within the allowed time. Because no objections were raised, the court reviewed the recommendation only for clear error — meaning it looked to see whether anything was obviously wrong, rather than conducting a full independent review. The court found no error in the magistrate judge's conclusions.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denied Rosales's petition, and dismissed the case.
The detailed version
- Rosales v. Segal · No. 0:24-cv-03138
- Katherine Menendez
- July 28, 2025
Background
Petitioner Teri Lynn Rosales, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to review whether a person is being lawfully held or, in this context, whether her sentence is being correctly administered. The respondent is Michael Segal, identified as Warden, presumably the official responsible for Rosales's custody.
The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on June 5, 2025. The R&R concluded that the respondent had correctly calculated Rosales's sentence and recommended that the habeas petition be dismissed.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b), the district court reviews de novo (independently and from scratch) any portion of an R&R to which a party has specifically objected. Where no objections are filed, the court applies a more deferential standard, reviewing only for clear error. Here, no objections were filed within the permitted time period. The court therefore reviewed the R&R under the clear-error standard, citing Nur v. Olmsted County and Grinder v. Gammon.
Ruling
Judge Menendez found no error in the R&R's conclusions and agreed with its recommendation. The court:
- Accepted the R&R (ECF 14);
- Denied Rosales's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF 1); and
- Dismissed the matter, directing that judgment be entered accordingly.
The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.