Hunter v. Rios
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-01773
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Hunter v. Rios, Judge Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation, denied Hunter’s habeas petition, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
John Hunter, Sr.’s habeas action was dismissed with prejudice; Warden Rios was the respondent.
What happened
In Hunter v. Rios, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after no party objected to it. The report concerned John Hunter, Sr.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The court reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The opinion does not describe the report’s reasoning or explain the underlying basis for denying the petition.
Judge Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the report and recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Hunter v. Rios · No. 0:18-cv-01773
- Eric Tostrud
- June 11, 2019
Background
John Hunter, Sr. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden Rios. The court received a May 15, 2019 Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. No party objected to the report.
Court’s Review
Because no party objected, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The opinion states that the court found no clear error, but it does not include the report’s reasoning or explain the underlying basis of the habeas petition’s denial.
Disposition
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court also ordered that judgment be entered.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.