Erving v. Rardin
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-00220
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Erving v. Rardin, Judge Tostrud denied Roosevelt Erving's petition seeking release from federal custody and dismissed the case.
Prisoners or detained individuals in the District of Minnesota who file habeas petitions, particularly those whose cases are resolved at the magistrate judge level without objection.
What happened
In Erving v. Rardin, No. 26-cv-220, Roosevelt Erving, a prisoner, filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release by challenging the legality of his confinement — a legal tool called a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins reviewed the petition and issued a Report and Recommendation on January 26, 2026, recommending that it be denied. Neither Erving nor the respondent, Warden Jared Rardin, filed any objections to that recommendation.
Because no party objected, the court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation only for clear error — a more limited review than if objections had been filed. The court found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Erving's petition, and dismissed the case. The opinion does not explain the specific reasons for denial, as those reasons are contained in the Magistrate Judge's underlying Report and Recommendation, which is not reproduced here.
The detailed version
- Erving v. Rardin · No. 0:26-cv-00220
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 23, 2026
Background
Petitioner Roosevelt Erving filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a prisoner challenges the legality of his confinement and seeks an order requiring his release or other relief — against Respondent Jared Rardin, the Warden of the facility where Erving is held. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Eric C. Tostrud, with Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins handling initial review.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
On January 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) recommending denial of the habeas petition. The specific substantive grounds for that recommendation are not set forth in this order; they appear in the Report and Recommendation itself, which is not reproduced in the opinion text provided.
Standard of Review
Neither Erving nor Rardin filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court reviews it only for clear error — a deferential standard that requires affirmance unless the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court: (1) accepted the Report and Recommendation; (2) denied Erving's petition for a writ of habeas corpus; and (3) dismissed the action. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
What Is Not in This Opinion
Because this order solely accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation without elaboration, the substantive legal reasoning — including the specific grounds for denying the habeas petition — is not available from this document alone. The full analysis would be found in ECF No. 6, the Report and Recommendation.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.