Armstrong v. Titus
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-00178
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Armstrong v. Titus, Judge Wright adopted a recommendation, denied Armstrong’s petition, and dismissed the matter.
Sheldon James Armstrong, III’s petition was denied and the matter was dismissed. Jeff Titus was the respondent identified as a warden.
What happened
Sheldon James Armstrong, III filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody against Jeff Titus, identified as a warden. The opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying claims.
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on March 23, 2020. Because no one objected, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the recommendation, denied Armstrong’s petition, dismissed the matter, and stated that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue.
The detailed version
- Armstrong v. Titus · No. 0:20-cv-00178
- Wilhelmina Wright
- July 24, 2020
Background
Sheldon James Armstrong, III petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus against Jeff Titus, identified in the caption as a warden. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the relief Armstrong sought.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a report and recommendation on March 23, 2020. No objections were filed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright stated that she found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Wright adopted the report and recommendation. The court denied Armstrong’s petition, dismissed the matter, and ordered that no certificate of appealability issue. The opinion does not independently discuss the merits of Armstrong’s habeas claims; it explains only that the court found no clear error in the recommendation.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court adopted the recommendation after clear-error review without analyzing the substance of the habeas claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.