Harper v. Warden
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-00240
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In William Harper v. Warden, Federal Prison Camp Duluth, Judge Tostrud denied William Harper's petition asking a federal court to order his release or other relief from federal prison custody, and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Harper may be able to refile.
Federal prisoners at Federal Prison Camp Duluth, or elsewhere, who file habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging their federal custody. Specifically affects petitioner William Harper, whose petition was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In William Harper v. Warden, Federal Prison Camp Duluth (File No. 26-cv-240), federal prisoner William Harper filed a legal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 — a law that allows people in federal custody to challenge the legality of their confinement — against the Warden of Federal Prison Camp Duluth. The case was first reviewed by Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation on February 13, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied. Neither Harper nor the Warden objected to that recommendation within the required time period.
Because no party objected, the case moved to District Judge Eric C. Tostrud for a review limited to checking for clear errors — a lower level of scrutiny than a full independent review. Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis or recommendations.
Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Harper's petition for a court order challenging his custody, and dismissed the case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but Harper is not permanently barred from raising these claims again in a new filing, subject to applicable legal rules.
The detailed version
This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by federal prisoner William Harper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Warden of Federal Prison Camp Duluth. A § 2241 petition is a mechanism by which a person in federal custody may challenge the execution or legality of their confinement — distinct from a § 2255 motion, which is used to challenge the underlying conviction or sentence.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on February 13, 2026, recommending denial of the petition. The opinion does not detail the substantive grounds of Harper's petition or the Magistrate Judge's reasoning; only the procedural outcome is described. Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the applicable period.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and controlling Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error — a deferential standard that does not require independent de novo (fresh) review of the merits.
District Judge Eric C. Tostrud, finding no clear error, accepted the R&R in full, denied Harper's § 2241 petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice means the judgment does not operate as a permanent bar to Harper re-raising these claims in a future proceeding, though applicable statutes of limitations and procedural rules would govern any such refiling. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.