Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled May 7, 2021

Huey v. United States

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:20-cv-01538
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Huey v. United States, Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition as moot, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

Who this affects

Taylor R. Huey’s § 2241 petition was denied as moot after his release from custody. Michelle Starr, identified as the proper warden-respondent, replaced the United States in the case.

What happened

In Huey v. United States, Taylor R. Huey challenged his custody under a federal law allowing people to ask a court to review their detention. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition as moot because Huey had been released.

No party objected to that recommendation, and the objection period ended. The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The court explained that the warden, Michelle Starr, was the proper respondent and had replaced the United States in the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Huey v. United States · No. 0:20-cv-01538
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
May 7, 2021

Background

Taylor R. Huey filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging a person’s custody. The petition initially named the United States as the respondent. The court noted that the warden of the institution where the person is incarcerated is the proper respondent in a § 2241 case, so Michelle Starr was automatically substituted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on April 19, 2021. It recommended that the petition be denied as moot because Huey had been released from custody. No party objected, and the deadline for objections passed.

Court’s Analysis

Because no party objected, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a de novo review. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied the petition as moot and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The court ordered judgment to 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.