Davalos v. Marques
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-01227
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Davalos v. Marques, Judge Tostrud denied Davalos’s habeas requests and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Oscar Javier Davalos’s habeas petition and motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 were denied, and his action was dismissed with prejudice. R. Marques was the respondent.
What happened
In Davalos v. Marques, Oscar Javier Davalos asked the court for habeas relief and also filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not describe the underlying grounds for those requests.
A magistrate judge had issued a report and recommendation. Because no party objected, the district court reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation, denied both of Davalos’s requests, and dismissed the action with prejudice, meaning the action was closed and the order barred refiling it.
The detailed version
- Davalos v. Marques · No. 0:18-cv-01227
- Eric Tostrud
- Nov. 1, 2018
Background
Oscar Javier Davalos was the petitioner, and R. Marques was the respondent. Davalos filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a separate motion under Title 28, United States Code, § 2241. The opinion adopting the recommendation does not state the factual or legal basis for those filings.
Court’s review
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a report and recommendation on October 3, 2018. No party objected. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and accepted the report and recommendation.
Ruling
The court denied Davalos’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his motion under § 2241. It also dismissed the action with prejudice and ordered that judgment be entered. Because this order contains no merits analysis and adopts a recommendation after clear-error review, this summary cannot determine from the opinion text whether the underlying habeas claims were rejected on their merits or on a threshold ground.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.