Cross v. Warden
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-02170
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cross v. Warden, FCI Duluth, Judge Blackwell denied DeAngelo Cross's federal court petition challenging his imprisonment and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Federal prisoners at FCI Duluth or other federal institutions who file habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and do not object to a magistrate judge's adverse recommendation, as the case illustrates that failure to object results in a deferential 'clear error' review standard.
What happened
In Cross v. Warden, FCI Duluth (Civ. No. 25-2170), federal prisoner DeAngelo Cross filed a petition asking the court to review the legality of his confinement under a federal law known as 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which allows prisoners to challenge the circumstances or conditions of their imprisonment in federal court. A magistrate judge — a judicial officer who assists the district court judge — issued a Report and Recommendation on October 7, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied. Cross did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time.
Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a limited form of review. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, denied Cross's petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Cross is not automatically barred from filing again in the future. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Cross v. Warden · No. 0:25-cv-02170
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
DeAngelo Cross, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer (pro se) at FCI Duluth, a federal correctional institution in Minnesota, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A § 2241 petition is a legal vehicle that allows a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of the execution of their sentence — as opposed to the conviction itself — in the federal district court where they are incarcerated. The respondent, the Warden of FCI Duluth, was represented by attorneys from the United States Attorney's Office.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on October 7, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied. The opinion does not describe the underlying substantive grounds for that recommendation. Cross did not file any objections to the R&R within the time allowed.
Standard of Review
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, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Clear error is a deferential standard; the court does not re-examine the analysis from scratch but instead looks for obvious mistakes.
Ruling
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the R&R and adopted it in full. The court: (1) accepted the October 7, 2025 R&R; (2) denied Cross's § 2241 petition; and (3) dismissed the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the court has not foreclosed the possibility of Cross refiling a petition, though this order does not address what conditions, if any, would permit refiling.
Note on Substantive Grounds
The district court's order does not reproduce or summarize the underlying reasoning from the magistrate judge's R&R. The merits of Cross's habeas claims — i.e., what legal challenge he raised and why the magistrate judge recommended denial — are not set out in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.