Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-00159
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons, Judge Blackwell denied Teresa Gallop's federal petition challenging her imprisonment after finding no clear error in the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Federal prisoners who file habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging their imprisonment, particularly those who fail to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation, as the lack of objection limits district court review to the deferential clear-error standard.
What happened
In Gallop v. Federal Bureau of Prisons and Segal, Warden, federal prisoner Teresa Gallop filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking release or relief from her imprisonment by asking a federal court to review the legality of her detention — a legal request known as a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright reviewed the petition and issued a Report and Recommendation on August 8, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied. Gallop did not file any objections to that recommendation within the permitted time period, which meant the district court could review the recommendation under a more limited standard — only looking for clear error rather than conducting a full independent review.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation after finding no clear error, and on September 4, 2025, denied Teresa Gallop's petition. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons · No. 0:25-cv-00159
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Sept. 4, 2025
Background
Petitioner Teresa Gallop, a federal prisoner, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Segal, identified as Warden. A habeas corpus petition under § 2241 is a legal mechanism by which a federal prisoner can ask a federal court to review whether the execution of their sentence or their continued imprisonment is lawful — it is distinct from a § 2254 petition (used by state prisoners) or a § 2255 motion (used to challenge the sentence itself after conviction in federal court).
Magistrate Judge Proceedings
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. On August 8, 2025, Magistrate Judge Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Gallop's petition be denied. The opinion does not describe the specific grounds on which the magistrate judge recommended denial.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and applicable Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), when a party fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a deferential standard that requires upholding the recommendation unless it contains an obvious mistake. Gallop did not file any objections to the R&R within the permitted time period.
Ruling
Judge Blackwell reviewed the R&R under the clear-error standard and found no clear error. He accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and denied Teresa Gallop's § 2241 habeas petition. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Note on Record
Because this order accepts an R&R without reaching the underlying merits independently, and because the R&R itself is not reproduced in the provided opinion text, the specific legal grounds for denial are not described in this order. The substantive analysis, if any, would be contained in Magistrate Judge Wright's August 8, 2025 R&R (Doc. No. 14).
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.