Bakambia v. Hart
Marc Amouri Bakambia v. Alexandria Hart, in her official capacity; Kathy Reid, in her individual capacity; Christine Oberembt, in her individual and official capacities; and Michael Oliveras, in his individual and official capacities.
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03653
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Bakambia v. Hart, Judge Provinzino denied Marc Amouri Bakambia's emergency motion for release from prison segregation and expungement of disciplinary charges.
People detained in prison facilities who seek emergency court orders for release from segregation or expungement of disciplinary records. Also relevant to litigants in the District of Minnesota who receive a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and are considering whether to file objections — failing to object limits appellate-level review to the more deferential clear-error standard.
What happened
In Bakambia v. Hart, No. 24-cv-3653, Marc Amouri Bakambia, a person detained in a prison facility, filed an emergency motion asking the court to order his immediate release from solitary confinement (segregation) and to erase what he described as false disciplinary charges against him.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on September 9, 2025, concluding that Bakambia's motion should be denied. Bakambia did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time, which meant the district court only needed to check whether the recommendation contained clear error.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino, finding no clear error in Magistrate Judge Foster's Report and Recommendation, adopted it in full and denied Bakambia's motion for emergency relief on November 3, 2025.
The detailed version
- Bakambia v. Hart · No. 0:24-cv-03653
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia is a person detained in a prison facility. He is suing several defendants in various capacities: Alexandria Hart (in her official capacity, substituted for Kathy Reid in her official capacity on October 17, 2025), Kathy Reid (in her individual capacity), Christine Oberembt (in her individual and official capacities), and Michael Oliveras (in his individual and official capacities). The underlying civil rights action bears case number 24-cv-3653.
The Motion at Issue
Bakambia filed an emergency motion (ECF No. 87) requesting two forms of relief: (1) immediate release from segregation — a form of solitary confinement within the prison — and (2) expungement (erasure) of disciplinary charges he characterized as false. This type of request is treated as a motion for a preliminary injunction (an emergency court order requiring or prohibiting specific action before a case is decided on the merits).
The Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on September 9, 2025 (ECF No. 96), concluding that Bakambia's motion should be denied. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Eighth Circuit precedent (see Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), when a party does not file written objections to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews the R&R only for "clear error" — a more deferential standard than de novo (full independent) review.
The Court's Ruling
Bakambia did not file objections to the R&R. Judge Provinzino therefore applied the clear error standard and found none. The court adopted the R&R in full and denied Bakambia's motion for emergency relief.
What the Court Did NOT Decide
This order addresses only the emergency motion for release from segregation and expungement of disciplinary charges. The opinion does not address the merits of the broader underlying lawsuit. The opinion does not explain the factual or legal basis for Magistrate Judge Foster's recommendation beyond stating it should be denied; those reasons appear in the R&R itself (ECF No. 96), which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.