Ward v. Beltz
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:21-cv-00930
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ward v. Beltz, Judge Wright adopted two recommendations, dismissed both petitions without prejudice, and denied counsel motions as moot.
Earl Lionell Ward’s two habeas petitions were dismissed without prejudice, and his two motions to appoint counsel were denied as moot. Tracey S. Beltz was the named respondent.
What happened
In Ward v. Beltz, the court reviewed recommendations from Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz concerning Earl Lionell Ward’s two petitions challenging his custody. No objections were filed, and the court reviewed the recommendations for clear error.
The court found no clear error and adopted both recommendations. It dismissed both petitions without prejudice and denied Ward’s motions to appoint counsel as moot. The court also ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered the order on June 30, 2021. The opinion does not explain the underlying reasons for dismissing the petitions because it addresses only the recommendations and the absence of clear error.
The detailed version
- Ward v. Beltz · No. 0:21-cv-00930
- Wilhelmina Wright
- June 30, 2021
Background
Earl Lionell Ward filed two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in separate cases against Tracey S. Beltz, identified in the caption as a warden. United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation in each case. The district court stated that no objections had been filed.
Court’s analysis
Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed each Report and Recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error. The court also addressed the possibility that Ward’s filing in the second case was intended as an objection to the recommendation in the first case. It concluded that the filing did not identify an error of law or fact, so any such objection was overruled.
The opinion does not describe the substantive issues raised in either petition or the reasons the recommendations called for dismissal. It therefore does not show that the court reached the merits of Ward’s custody-related claims.
Disposition
The court adopted the May 3, 2021 Report and Recommendation in Case No. 21-cv-0930 and dismissed Ward’s petition in that case without prejudice. It denied his motion to appoint counsel in that case as moot.
The court also adopted the May 28, 2021 Report and Recommendation in Case No. 21-cv-1232 and dismissed Ward’s petition in that case without prejudice. It denied his motion to appoint counsel in that case as moot. The court ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue and directed that judgment be entered. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.