Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 3, 2020

Ford v. Fikes

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:20-cv-00238
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasSentencing
In one sentence

Ford v. Fikes: Judge Magnuson denied Ford’s petition challenging his sentence and hearing request, finding the sentence-calculation claim contrary to federal law and dismissing the matter with prejudice.

Who this affects

DeJuan Ford’s sentence challenge and request for an evidentiary hearing were denied, and his case was dismissed with prejudice; the order also adopted the recommendation concerning Warden Fikes.

What happened

In Ford v. Fikes, DeJuan Ford challenged how his sentence was calculated and asked the court to hold an evidentiary hearing.

A magistrate judge recommended denying both requests and dismissing the case with prejudice. Ford did not object before the deadline, so he gave up specific review of the recommendation.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied the petition and hearing request, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The judge agreed that Ford’s sentence-calculation claim was contrary to federal law.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ford v. Fikes · No. 0:20-cv-00238
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
Aug. 3, 2020

Background

DeJuan Ford filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court challenge to the legality of a person’s custody or sentence. He argued that his sentence had been calculated incorrectly and separately requested an evidentiary hearing.

United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny both the petition and the hearing request and dismiss the matter with prejudice. Ford did not object to the recommendation, and the deadline for doing so had passed.

Court’s analysis

Because Ford did not make specific objections, the court stated that he waived de novo review, meaning a fresh review, of the recommendation. The court nevertheless said that, even if Ford had objected, it agreed with the recommendation that his sentence-calculation claim was contrary to federal law, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied Ford’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, denied his request for an evidentiary hearing, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.