Puchalski v. McLellan
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:20-cv-00973
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Puchalski v. McLellan, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied the petition and related motion as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Jacob Hugo Puchalski, whose habeas petition, related motion, and fee application were denied as moot and whose action was dismissed without prejudice; the respondents were affected by the dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Puchalski v. McLellan, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Jacob Hugo Puchalski’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and related motion. No party objected to the recommendation.
The court found no clear error and accepted the recommendation. It denied the habeas petition and related motion as moot, and also denied Puchalski’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Puchalski v. McLellan · No. 0:20-cv-00973
- Eric Tostrud
- July 6, 2020
Background
Jacob Hugo Puchalski filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a related motion. He also applied to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs. The court had received a June 15, 2020 Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.
Review of the Recommendation
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning it examined whether the recommendation contained an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error and accepted the recommendation.
Ruling
The court denied Puchalski’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and related motion as moot. It also denied his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. The opinion provided does not state the underlying reason the matters were moot or otherwise describe the recommendation’s analysis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.