Yannice Y. Nunez v. L.C. Davis, Acting Warden
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:25-cv-02061
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Nunez v. Davis, Judge Magnuson dismissed as moot Yannice Nunez's petition for court-ordered release because she had already been released from custody.
Individuals who are released from custody while their federal habeas petition is still pending, as release may render the petition moot and result in dismissal without a ruling on the underlying legal claims.
What happened
In Nunez v. Davis (Case No. 25-2061), Yannice Y. Nunez filed a petition asking a federal court to order her release from custody — a legal request known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Before the court ruled on the merits, Nunez was released from custody, which eliminated the live dispute the court would need to resolve.
United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation on July 23, 2026, concluding that because Nunez had already been released, there was no longer an active case or controversy for the court to decide. Neither party objected to that recommendation within the required time period.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. On August 12, 2026, Judge Magnuson denied the petition as moot and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Yannice Y. Nunez v. L.C. Davis, Acting Warden · No. 0:25-cv-02061
- Paul Magnuson
- Aug. 12, 2026
Background
Petitioner Yannice Y. Nunez filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus — a federal court request for release from allegedly unlawful custody — against L.C. Davis, identified in the caption as Acting Warden. The opinion does not describe the underlying grounds for the petition or the nature of the custody.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 23, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied as moot. The basis for that recommendation was that Nunez had been released from custody during the pendency of the case, eliminating the live case or controversy required for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction. No party objected to the R&R, and the time to do so passed under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b), a district court must review de novo (anew, without deference) any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made. Where, as here, no objections are filed, the district court reviews only for clear error. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) in support of that standard.
Ruling
Judge Magnuson reviewed the R&R and found no error, clear or otherwise, in Magistrate Judge Bullard's reasoning. He adopted the R&R, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.