Harper v. Warden
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-00240
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Harper v. Warden, Federal Prison Camp Duluth, Judge Tostrud denied William Harper's petition challenging his federal imprisonment and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Federal prisoners who file petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the execution of their sentences in the District of Minnesota, particularly those housed at Federal Prison Camp Duluth.
What happened
William Harper, a prisoner at Federal Prison Camp Duluth, filed a petition in federal court asking to be released or otherwise granted relief under a law (28 U.S.C. § 2241) that allows federal prisoners to challenge the legality of their detention. The case was first reviewed by Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation on February 13, 2026, concluding that the petition should be denied. Harper did not object to that recommendation.
Because no party objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, District Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed it only for clear error — a lower level of scrutiny than a full independent review. Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation in full in Harper v. Warden, Federal Prison Camp Duluth. The petition was denied and the case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Harper is not necessarily barred from raising his claims again in a future filing, depending on applicable legal rules.
The detailed version
- Harper v. Warden · No. 0:26-cv-00240
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 13, 2026
Background
William Harper, identified as a prisoner (petitioner) at Federal Prison Camp Duluth, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A petition under § 2241 is a mechanism by which a federal prisoner may challenge the execution of their sentence — for example, the manner in which a sentence is being carried out — as distinct from a direct challenge to the conviction itself. The respondent is the Warden of Federal Prison Camp Duluth.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on February 13, 2026 (ECF No. 5). The opinion does not summarize the substance of the R&R's analysis or the grounds on which the Magistrate Judge recommended denial; the text of those findings is contained in ECF No. 5, which is not reproduced here.
Standard of Review
Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a deferential standard meaning the court will adopt the recommendation unless it finds an obvious mistake.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the R&R. The court:
- Accepted the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5);
- Denied Harper's § 2241 petition (ECF No. 1); and
- Dismissed the action without prejudice — meaning the dismissal does not, on its face, permanently bar Harper from filing again, though applicable procedural and substantive rules governing successive or refiled petitions may independently limit future filings.
Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Notes on Scope
This order is brief and administrative in nature. Because the underlying R&R is not reproduced in the opinion text, the specific legal grounds for denying the petition — such as failure to exhaust administrative remedies, lack of merit, or another threshold issue — cannot be determined from this document alone.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.