Cabrera-Lopez v. Molis
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:25-cv-04730
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cabrera-Lopez v. Molis, Judge Brasel denied Wendy Cabrera-Lopez's petition challenging her imprisonment and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Individuals who are imprisoned and are seeking to challenge the lawfulness of their federal confinement through a habeas petition in the District of Minnesota, particularly where no party objects to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
What happened
In Cabrera-Lopez v. L. Molis, Warden, federal prisoner Wendy Cabrera-Lopez filed a petition asking the court to order her release or other relief, a legal tool known as a writ of habeas corpus — a challenge to the lawfulness of a person's imprisonment. The case was initially reviewed by Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, who issued a Report and Recommendation on January 12, 2026, concluding that the petition should be denied. No party objected to that recommendation.
Because no party objected, the district court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a more limited review than it would otherwise conduct. The court found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Cabrera-Lopez cannot refile this same petition in this court. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Cabrera-Lopez v. Molis · No. 0:25-cv-04730
- Nancy Brasel
- Mar. 11, 2026
Background
Petitioner Wendy Cabrera-Lopez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) — a legal challenge to the lawfulness of her confinement — against L. Molis, the Warden, as Respondent. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins for initial review.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
On January 12, 2026, Magistrate Judge Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) recommending that the habeas petition be denied. The opinion does not detail the underlying grounds for the Magistrate Judge's recommendation beyond what is summarized here.
Standard of Review
Neither party 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) (per curiam)), when no party objects, the district court reviews the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a deferential standard under which the court will accept the recommendation unless it finds a plain mistake.
Court's Ruling
Judge Brasel found no clear error in the Report and Recommendation and accepted it in full. The court: (1) accepted the Report and Recommendation; (2) denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (3) dismissed the action with prejudice, barring Cabrera-Lopez from refiling this same petition. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Notes on Opinion Scope
The opinion is a brief order accepting a Magistrate Judge's recommendation and does not set forth the underlying facts of Cabrera-Lopez's confinement, the legal grounds raised in the petition, or the specific reasons the petition was found to lack merit. Those details, if any, would be found in the Magistrate Judge's January 12, 2026 Report and Recommendation, which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.