Ward v. Roy
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:17-cv-04542
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Ward v. Roy, Judge Wright denied Ward’s habeas petition, dismissed the action without prejudice, and declined a certificate of appealability.
Earl Lionell Ward’s § 2254 petition was denied, and his action was dismissed without prejudice; the order also declined a certificate of appealability.
What happened
Ward v. Roy concerned Earl Lionell Ward’s petition under a federal law that allows a person to challenge certain custody through a habeas petition. The opinion identifies Tom Roy, Commissioner, as the respondent but does not explain the petition’s underlying claims.
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on May 10, 2018. Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed that recommendation for clear error and found none.
The court adopted the recommendation, denied Ward’s petition, dismissed the action without prejudice, and declined to grant a certificate of appealability. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order.
The detailed version
- Ward v. Roy · No. 0:17-cv-04542
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Aug. 13, 2018
Background
Earl Lionell Ward filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, a court order addressing allegedly unlawful custody. The opinion names Tom Roy, Commissioner, as the respondent. It does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the earlier recommendation’s reasoning.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on May 10, 2018. No party filed objections. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court stated that it found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied Ward’s § 2254 petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also declined to grant a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
What the Opinion Does Not Decide
This order does not explain the merits of Ward’s habeas claims or state why the petition was denied and the action dismissed without prejudice. Its stated basis is the adoption of the magistrate judge’s recommendation after clear-error review without objections.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.