Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2019

Augustin B. v. McAleenan

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:19-cv-00296
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Augustin B. v. McAleenan: Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Augustin B., whose petition was denied as moot and whose action was dismissed without prejudice; respondents Kevin McAleenan, William P. Barr, Peter Berg, and Joel Brott.

What happened

In Augustin B. v. McAleenan, the court reviewed a petition filed by Augustin B. against Kevin McAleenan, William P. Barr, Peter Berg, and Joel Brott.

The court received Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's report and recommendation. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order directed that judgment be entered.

The detailed version

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

Case
Augustin B. v. McAleenan · No. 0:19-cv-00296
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Sept. 11, 2019

Background

Augustin B. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Kevin McAleenan, William P. Barr, Peter Berg, and Joel Brott. The opinion does not explain the petition's underlying allegations or why the petition became moot.

Report and Recommendation

The court received an August 13, 2019 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. No party objected. Under the applicable review standard, the court therefore examined the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Ruling

Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that the report and recommendation be accepted. The petition was denied as moot. The action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling on that basis. The court also directed entry of judgment. The order does not provide further explanation of the mootness determination or the jurisdictional issue.

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.