Fernandez v. Warden
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-02507
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Fernandez v. Warden, FMC Rochester, Judge Menendez denied Hector Fernandez's petition challenging the calculation of his federal time credits, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Federal prisoners at FMC Rochester or elsewhere who believe their earned time credits under the First Step Act or Second Chance Act have been miscalculated, and who may be considering or have filed similar habeas petitions.
What happened
In Fernandez v. Warden, FMC Rochester, federal prisoner Hector Fernandez filed a petition asking the court to order that his earned time credits under the First Step Act and Second Chance Act be recalculated. He argued that the Bureau of Prisons had miscalculated how much time should be credited toward his release. The case was first reviewed by a magistrate judge, who concluded that Fernandez had misread the relevant federal laws and recommended that the petition be denied.
Fernandez did not file any objections to the magistrate judge's report within the required 14-day deadline, or in the weeks that followed. Because no objections were filed, the district court was only required to check the report for clear legal error — a lower level of scrutiny than if objections had been raised.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis, accepted the report and recommendation in full, and denied Fernandez's petition. A judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. Warden · No. 0:26-cv-02507
- Katherine Menendez
- July 21, 2026
Background
Petitioner Hector Fernandez, a prisoner housed at FMC Rochester, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal challenge asking a court to order that a person's detention or sentence conditions are unlawful. Fernandez argued that his time credits under two federal statutes, the First Step Act and the Second Chance Act, had been miscalculated. These statutes allow certain federal prisoners to earn credits toward earlier release or supervised release placement based on participation in rehabilitation programming.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the petition. Judge Brisbois concluded that Fernandez had misread the relevant statutory language — meaning Fernandez's interpretation of how the credits should be calculated was incorrect under the statutes as written.
Fernandez's Failure to Object
Fernandez did not file objections to the R&R within the 14-day deadline set by District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), nor did he file objections in the weeks following that deadline. Under applicable law, when a party fails to object to an R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error — a significantly more deferential standard than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that applies when objections are filed.
The Court's Ruling
Judge Menendez reviewed the R&R under the clear-error standard, found no error, and accepted the R&R in its entirety. The court denied Fernandez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not use the phrases "with prejudice" or "without prejudice" in describing the dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.