Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 3, 2019

Malone v. Marques

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:19-cv-00835
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Malone v. Marques, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation and dismissed Malone’s habeas petition without prejudice.

Who this affects

Dennell Malone’s habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice; Warden R. Marques was the respondent.

What happened

In Malone v. Marques, Dennell Malone asked the federal court to review his habeas petition. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.

No objections were filed to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for obvious error and found none.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the recommendation and dismissed Malone’s petition without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The order does not state the reason for dismissal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Malone v. Marques · No. 0:19-cv-00835
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
Oct. 3, 2019

Background

Dennell Malone filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden R. Marques. The order does not describe the petition’s claims or the relief Malone requested.

Procedure

United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson issued a Report and Recommendation on August 19, 2019. No objections were filed. Under the applicable procedure, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Malone’s habeas petition without prejudice. The order does not state the reason for the dismissal or address the petition’s underlying merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.