Rodrigues v. United States Probation
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-00584
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Rodrigues v. United States Probation, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, denied Jessie M. Rodrigues’s habeas petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
Jessie M. Rodrigues’s petition was denied, and the matter against United States Probation was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not state the underlying basis for the petition or denial.
What happened
Jessie M. Rodrigues petitioned against United States Probation for a court order addressing his custody. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition.
Rodrigues did not file timely objections. The recommendation was mailed to his last known address but returned as undeliverable, and he had not provided a forwarding address.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The opinion does not state the underlying reason for recommending denial.
The detailed version
- Rodrigues v. United States Probation · No. 0:20-cv-00584
- Wilhelmina Wright
- June 19, 2020
Background
Jessie M. Rodrigues filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against United States Probation. The opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying claims or the basis for the recommended denial.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez issued a March 23, 2020 Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. Rodrigues did not file objections within the permitted period. The Clerk mailed the recommendation to Rodrigues’s last known address, but the mailing was returned as undeliverable. Rodrigues had not provided a forwarding address and was not located through an inmate search. The court declined to delay its decision while waiting for updated contact information.
Ruling
Because no timely objections were filed, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake on the face of the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation. It denied Rodrigues’s petition and dismissed this matter without prejudice, meaning the order did not state that refiling was barred. The court directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not provide the substantive reason for the recommended denial.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.