Miller v. United States of America
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-00376
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Miller v. United States, Judge Wright adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed Michael A. Miller’s habeas petition without prejudice.
Michael A. Miller’s habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice. The respondents were the United States of America, President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. Marshals Service, Joel Brott, and Brian Frank.
What happened
Miller v. United States of America concerns Michael A. Miller’s petition asking for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the respondents’ positions.
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on May 14, 2020. No one filed objections, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed Miller’s habeas petition without prejudice. The court entered judgment accordingly.
The detailed version
- Miller v. United States of America · No. 0:20-cv-00376
- Wilhelmina Wright
- July 1, 2020
Background
Michael A. Miller filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the United States of America, President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. Marshals Service, Joel Brott, and Brian Frank. The opinion does not state the factual or legal basis of the petition.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation on May 14, 2020. No objections were filed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the May 14, 2020 report and recommendation. It dismissed Michael A. Miller’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not explain the recommendation’s underlying reasoning because the report and recommendation is not included in the provided text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.