Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 24, 2019

Gael A. O. v. DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:18-cv-03269
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gael A. O. v. DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Who this affects

Gael A. O. and DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel.

What happened

In Gael A. O. v. DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Gael A. O.’s petition for habeas relief.

No timely objections were filed. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the recommendation, denied Gael A. O.’s petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gael A. O. v. DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel · No. 0:18-cv-03269
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
July 24, 2019

Background

Gael A. O. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel. United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on May 13, 2019. The opinion does not include the recommendation’s reasoning or describe the underlying claims.

Review of the Recommendation

No timely objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. When objections are not filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied Gael A. O.’s habeas petition and dismissed the case without prejudice. The order does not explain the basis for denying the petition beyond adopting the recommendation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.