Perez-Valencia v. Rardin
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:26-cv-02865
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Perez-Valencia v. Rardin, Judge Blackwell denied a petition for release from custody and dismissed the case after finding no clear error in the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Mayel Perez-Valencia, who was in government custody and sought release through a habeas corpus petition. The petition was denied and the case dismissed.
What happened
In Perez-Valencia v. Rardin (Civ. No. 26-2865), Mayel Perez-Valencia filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release from custody, a legal procedure that allows a person held by the government to challenge whether that detention is lawful. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois reviewed the petition and issued a Report and Recommendation on July 28, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied. Perez-Valencia did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time.
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report only for clear error — a deferential standard that requires the court to accept the recommendation unless it contains an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error in the report.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, denied Mayel Perez-Valencia's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the case.
The detailed version
- Perez-Valencia v. Rardin · No. 0:26-cv-02865
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
Petitioner Mayel Perez-Valencia filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) against Respondent Jared Rardin. A writ of habeas corpus is a legal mechanism by which a person in government custody challenges the lawfulness of that detention. The opinion does not describe the underlying grounds of the petition or the nature of the custody.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 28, 2026 (Doc. No. 8), recommending denial of the petition. The opinion does not describe the reasoning in the R&R itself.
Absence of Objections
Perez-Valencia did not file any objections to the R&R within the time permitted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the Eighth Circuit's decision in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), when no timely objections are filed, a district court reviews an R&R only for clear error — a highly deferential standard that requires acceptance of the recommendation unless it contains an obvious mistake.
Ruling
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it in full. The court:
- Accepted the July 28, 2026 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 8).
- Denied Petitioner Mayel Perez-Valencia's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1).
- Dismissed the case.
Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.