Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.MixedFiled Jan. 2, 2019

Khdeer v. Paul

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:18-cv-02112
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Khdeer v. Paul, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed the detention challenge for lack of jurisdiction, alternatively denied it on the merits, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Mazen Khdeer’s petition and action were dismissed with prejudice; Warden David Paul was the respondent.

What happened

In Khdeer v. Paul, Mazen Khdeer challenged his detention by filing a petition for a court order concerning custody. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or arguments.

No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or alternatively denied it on the merits, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered.

The detailed version

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

Case
Khdeer v. Paul · No. 0:18-cv-02112
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Jan. 2, 2019

Background

Mazen Khdeer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion provided does not include the petition’s factual allegations, legal claims, or the reasoning in the magistrate judge’s underlying Report and Recommendation.

Review of the Recommendation

The court received a November 29, 2018 Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. Because no party objected, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error.

Ruling

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed Khdeer’s petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court determined it lacked authority to decide the petition. Alternatively, the court denied the petition on the merits. The court also dismissed the action with prejudice and ordered judgment to be entered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.