Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 1, 2018

Nugent v. Marques

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:18-cv-00827
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Nugent v. Marques, Judge Wright denied Nugent’s petition and dismissed the action without prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Who this affects

LuckyBill Nugent’s petition was denied, and his action was dismissed without prejudice; the order resolved the action based on the court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

What happened

Nugent v. Marques concerns LuckyBill Nugent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden R. Marques. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action after determining that the court lacked authority to hear Nugent’s claims.

Neither side filed objections to the recommendation. Judge Wright therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none in the determination that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Wright adopted the recommendation as modified, denied Nugent’s petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court changed the recommendation’s proposed dismissal with prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nugent v. Marques · No. 0:18-cv-00827
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
Aug. 1, 2018

Background

LuckyBill Nugent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden R. Marques. The court considered a June 8, 2018 report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois.

Report and Recommendation

The report and recommendation concluded that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning it lacked legal authority to decide Nugent’s claims. It recommended dismissing the action with prejudice. No objections were filed.

Because there were no timely objections, Judge Wright reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error in the conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Wright adopted the report and recommendation as modified. The court modified the recommended disposition because a case dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be dismissed without prejudice. The court denied Nugent’s petition and dismissed the action without prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.