Morales v. Rardin
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:24-cv-04635
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Vidal Licea Morales v. Jared Rardin, Judge Blackwell accepted the recommendation and denied Vidal Licea Morales’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Vidal Licea Morales’s § 2241 petition was denied. Jared Rardin was the respondent.
What happened
In Vidal Licea Morales v. Jared Rardin, Vidal Licea Morales asked the District of Minnesota to review his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a report and recommendation on December 5, 2025. No one filed timely objections, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the report and recommendation and denied Vidal Licea Morales’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Morales v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-04635
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Jan. 9, 2026
Background
Vidal Licea Morales, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not state the petition’s factual allegations or legal grounds. Jared Rardin was represented by attorneys from the United States Attorney’s Office.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on December 5, 2025. The opinion states that no objections were filed within the permitted time.
Court’s Review
Because no timely objections were filed, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error. The opinion does not contain a merits analysis of the underlying petition.
Disposition
The court accepted the December 5, 2025 Report and Recommendation. It denied Vidal Licea Morales’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.