Nnodi H. v. Secretary Homeland Security
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-01986
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Nnodi H. v. McAleenan, Judge Tostrud accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the habeas petition as moot.
Nnodi H.’s habeas petition was denied as moot. The order also changed the names of two government respondents to their successors.
What happened
Nnodi H. v. McAleenan concerned a petition asking the court for a writ of habeas corpus. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on May 24, 2019.
No party objected to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none. The order also updated the names of two government respondents because their successors had taken their positions.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation and denied Nnodi H.’s habeas petition as moot. The order does not explain why the petition was moot.
The detailed version
- Nnodi H. v. Secretary Homeland Security · No. 0:18-cv-01986
- Eric Tostrud
- June 10, 2019
Background
Nnodi H. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or explain the events that allegedly made the petition moot. United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on May 24, 2019.
Court’s review
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed it for clear error—an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Judge Tostrud found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation.
The order also substituted Kevin McAleenan for the prior Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Leslie Tritten for the prior ICE field office director, applying the rule that a public officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.
Disposition
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation and denied as moot the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The opinion does not state the reason the petition was moot and does not decide the petition’s underlying legal issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.