Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled June 23, 2021

Wilson v. Fikes

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:21-cv-00367
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wilson v. Fikes, Judge Magnuson denied Wilson’s habeas petition and motion to amend after finding no due-process violation, then dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Javece Wilson’s amended habeas petition and motion to amend were denied, and his case was dismissed with prejudice. The respondents were Warden J. Fikes, FBOP, and DOJ.

What happened

In Wilson v. Fikes, Javece Wilson challenged a disciplinary hearing at FCI Sandstone. A magistrate judge recommended denying his amended petition and motion to amend, and Wilson objected without identifying a specific error.

The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error because Wilson’s objections repeated earlier arguments rather than challenging a specific ruling. The court agreed that the disciplinary hearing did not violate due process and that the hearing officer’s conclusion was supported by sufficient evidence.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied Wilson’s amended habeas petition, denied his motion to amend, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wilson v. Fikes · No. 0:21-cv-00367
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
June 23, 2021

Background

Javece Wilson filed an amended petition asking for habeas relief based on issues related to a disciplinary hearing at FCI Sandstone. He also filed a motion to amend. United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended denying both requests in a May 18, 2021, report and recommendation.

Review of the Recommendation

Wilson filed objections, but the district court found that he did not challenge any specific ruling in the recommendation. Instead, he repeated arguments he had previously made. Although the court read his objections broadly, it found that they provided no factual or legal basis for overturning the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full reconsideration of each issue.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s analysis. It held that there was no due-process violation connected to Wilson’s disciplinary hearing and that the disciplinary-hearing officer’s conclusion was supported by sufficient evidence. The court found no error—clear or otherwise—in the recommendation’s reasoning.

The court ordered that:

  1. The report and recommendation was adopted.
  2. Wilson’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.
  3. Wilson’s motion to amend was denied.
  4. The matter was dismissed with prejudice.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson 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.