Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 23, 2019

McCarty v. Marques

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:18-cv-00791
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McCarty v. Marques, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied the petition and emergency motion as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Who this affects

Brian McCarty’s habeas petition and emergency motion were denied as moot, and his action was dismissed without prejudice. The respondent was Warden R. Marques.

What happened

In McCarty v. Marques, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s January 4, 2019 report and recommendation after no party objected. The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

The court found no clear error and accepted the recommendation. It denied Brian McCarty’s habeas petition as moot, denied his emergency motion to expedite consideration of the petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered the order on January 23, 2019. The order does not explain why the petition and emergency motion were moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
McCarty v. Marques · No. 0:18-cv-00791
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Jan. 23, 2019

Background

Brian McCarty filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden R. Marques. The court received a January 4, 2019 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez. No party objected to the report and recommendation.

Court’s Review

Because no party objected, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error and accepted the report and recommendation.

Rulings

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus as moot. It also denied McCarty’s emergency motion to expedite consideration of the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as moot. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court directed that judgment be entered.

Effect of the Order

The order ended this action based on mootness and did not explain the underlying reason the petition and emergency motion were moot. Judge Eric C. Tostrud signed the order on January 23, 2019.

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.