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

Shannon v. Minnesota Department of Corrections

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:18-cv-00646
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Shannon v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Judge Wright adopted a recommendation, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss, denied Shannon’s amended petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Who this affects

James P. Shannon’s amended petition was denied, and his case was dismissed without prejudice. The Minnesota Department of Corrections and Tom Roy obtained dismissal of their motion.

What happened

James P. Shannon filed an amended petition, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Tom Roy moved to dismiss it. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on June 4, 2019.

No timely objections were filed. The court therefore reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record, and found none.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the report and recommendation, granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, denied Shannon’s amended petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue.

The detailed version

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

Case
Shannon v. Minnesota Department of Corrections · No. 0:18-cv-00646
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
July 24, 2019

Background

James P. Shannon filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Minnesota Department of Corrections and Tom Roy filed a motion to dismiss. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation on June 4, 2019.

Review of the Recommendation

No timely objections to the report and recommendation were filed. Under the applicable review standard, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court stated that it had reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the recommendation’s reasoning.

Ruling

The court adopted the June 4, 2019 report and recommendation. It granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, denied Shannon’s amended petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court also ordered that no certificate of appealability issue. Because the order adopted the recommendation without addressing the merits of the petition, this is classified as a procedural order.

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.