Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Substantive rulingFiled Mar. 11, 2026

Cabrera-Lopez v. Molis

Judge
Nancy Brasel
Docket
0:25-cv-04730
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wendy Cabrera-Lopez v. L. Molis, Warden, Judge Nancy E. Brasel denied the petition for a court order challenging imprisonment (habeas corpus) filed by Wendy Cabrera-Lopez and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

Who this affects

Wendy Cabrera-Lopez, a person in custody who filed a petition challenging her imprisonment, and potentially other individuals in similar custody situations whose habeas petitions are reviewed under the same standard in this district.

What happened

In Wendy Cabrera-Lopez v. L. Molis, Warden (Case No. 25-CV-4730), Wendy Cabrera-Lopez filed a petition in federal court seeking a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking the court to order that a person being held in custody be released or that their detention be reviewed. The respondent is L. Molis, identified as a Warden. The case was assigned to both a magistrate judge and a district court judge for handling.

United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on January 12, 2026, addressing the petition. Neither Cabrera-Lopez nor the Warden filed any objections to that recommendation within the time allowed. When no party objects, the district court reviews the magistrate judge's recommendation only for clear error — a more limited review than if objections had been raised.

Finding no clear error in the magistrate judge's recommendation, Judge Nancy E. Brasel accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice means Cabrera-Lopez cannot refile this same claim in this court.

The detailed version

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

Case

Wendy Cabrera-Lopez v. L. Molis, Warden, No. 25-CV-4730 (NEB/SGE), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Judge

District Judge Nancy E. Brasel (with Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins authoring the underlying Report and Recommendation).

Background

Petitioner Wendy Cabrera-Lopez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) challenging her custody under the supervision of L. Molis, identified as a Warden. The opinion does not describe the underlying grounds for the petition, the nature of Cabrera-Lopez's custody, or the legal arguments raised.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

On January 12, 2026, Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) addressing the petition. The content and reasoning of that Report and Recommendation are not reproduced in this order.

Standard of Review

Because neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, Judge Brasel applied a clear error standard of review, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). This is a deferential standard — the district court will only reject the magistrate's recommendation if it contains an obvious legal or factual mistake.

Ruling: Finding no clear error, Judge Brasel:

  1. Accepted the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4);
  2. Denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1); and
  3. Dismissed the action with prejudice — barring refiling of this claim.

Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.

What the opinion does not address

The opinion does not set forth the underlying facts of Cabrera-Lopez's custody, the legal grounds raised in the petition, or the reasoning in Magistrate Judge Elkins's Report and Recommendation. Reviewers or readers seeking those details would need to consult ECF No. 4 directly.

Reviewer note from the AI+
The opinion is very brief and does not describe the underlying facts, grounds for the habeas petition, or the reasoning in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. The nature of Cabrera-Lopez's custody (e.g., criminal, immigration detention) is not stated in this order. The summaries accurately reflect only what this order contains. A reviewer may wish to pull ECF No. 4 to provide richer context if needed. Also, the date listed in the metadata is 2026-03-11, which is in the future relative to a 2025 training cutoff — this is noted but does not affect the accuracy of the summary.
The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.