Berrios Osorio v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03115
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Berrios Osorio v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Tostrud denied the federal prisoner's petition challenging his imprisonment and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Federal prisoners in the District of Minnesota (and elsewhere) who file § 2241 habeas petitions challenging their detention, particularly those whose cases are decided on a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to which no objections are filed.
What happened
In Berrios Osorio v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 25-cv-3115, federal prisoner Olvyn Avilo Berrios Osorio filed a petition asking the court to review his imprisonment under a federal law (28 U.S.C. § 2241) that allows people held in federal custody to challenge the legality of their detention. The case involves the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of FCI Sandstone, the Minnesota federal correctional institution where Berrios Osorio is held.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko reviewed the petition and issued a Report and Recommendation on August 28, 2025, concluding the petition should be denied. Neither Berrios Osorio nor the government objected to that recommendation within the allowed time. When no party objects, the district court reviews the magistrate's work only for clear, obvious error — a less demanding standard than full review.
Finding no clear error in Magistrate Judge Micko's analysis, Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means Berrios Osorio is not permanently barred from raising these issues again in a future filing, though the opinion does not discuss what future options may be available.
The detailed version
- Berrios Osorio v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · No. 0:25-cv-03115
- Eric Tostrud
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
Petitioner Olvyn Avilo Berrios Osorio, a federal prisoner housed at FCI Sandstone in Minnesota, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order requiring the government to justify a person's detention) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondents are the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of FCI Sandstone. The petition was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Magistrate Judge Proceedings
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 28, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied. The opinion does not describe the substance of the R&R or the grounds on which denial was recommended.
Absence of Objections and Standard of Review
Neither party objected to the R&R within the period provided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When no objections are filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge's R&R only for clear error, meaning the court will accept the recommendation unless the magistrate made an obvious mistake. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) as authority for this standard.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it in full. The court issued three dispositions: (1) the R&R was accepted; (2) the § 2241 habeas petition was denied; and (3) the action was dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently foreclose the petitioner from bringing the same or similar claims in a future proceeding, though the court's order provides no guidance on what future avenues, if any, may be available.
Limitations of This Summary
The opinion does not include the text of the R&R itself, so the specific legal grounds for denying the petition — for example, whether the denial was based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a jurisdictional defect, a merits determination, or another reason — cannot be determined from this order alone.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.