Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 10, 2026

Redifer v. Vaught

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:25-cv-00933
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Redifer v. Vaught, Judge Tostrud accepted a recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

Who this affects

Michael Caine Redifer, Sr.’s petition was denied, and the matter was dismissed without prejudice. The respondents were T. Vaught, Warden, and FCI Sandstone.

What happened

In Michael Caine Redifer, Sr. v. T. Vaught, Warden, and FCI Sandstone, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued an Order and Report and Recommendation on December 29, 2025. No party filed objections; the petitioner’s deadline to object was February 3, 2026.

Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. It found none and accepted the recommendation in full.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied Michael Caine Redifer, Sr.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Redifer v. Vaught · No. 0:25-cv-00933
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Feb. 10, 2026

Background

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued an Order and Report and Recommendation on December 29, 2025. The opinion states that Michael Caine Redifer, Sr. requested more time to object. The court gave him until February 3, 2026, to file objections, but that deadline passed without any objections from any party.

Review and ruling

Because no party objected, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. It denied Michael Caine Redifer, Sr.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, dismissed the matter without prejudice, and directed that judgment be entered.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court adopted the recommendation after clear-error review without addressing the merits of the habeas petition in this opinion. The dismissal was expressly without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.