Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2021

Salter v. Fikes

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:20-cv-02253
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Salter v. Fikes, Judge Tostrud denied Salter’s Section 2241 petition and dismissed the action without prejudice after finding no clear error.

Who this affects

Tasmon Salter’s Section 2241 petition was denied, and his action was dismissed without prejudice. J. Fikes, identified as Warden FCI Sandstone, was the respondent.

What happened

In Salter v. Fikes, Tasmon Salter filed a petition under Section 2241 seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a report and recommendation on May 5, 2021. Neither party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the report and recommendation, denied Salter’s petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered.

The detailed version

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

Case
Salter v. Fikes · No. 0:20-cv-02253
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
June 9, 2021

Background

Tasmon Salter was the petitioner, and J. Fikes, identified in the caption as Warden FCI Sandstone, was the respondent. Salter filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not explain the factual or legal basis of the petition.

Review of the Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on May 5, 2021. No party objected. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court stated that it found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that the Report and Recommendation be accepted, that Salter’s Section 2241 petition be denied, and that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The court also directed that judgment be entered. Because the order adopted the recommendation after clear-error review and does not contain a merits analysis, this summary classifies the ruling as procedural.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.