Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 13, 2021

Marshalek v. Schnell

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:20-cv-00628
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Marshalek v. Schnell, Judge Magnuson adopted a recommendation, denied Marshalek’s petition and summary-judgment motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and issued no appeal certificate.

Who this affects

Clayton Francis Marshalek’s petition was denied and his case was dismissed with prejudice; Paul Schnell was the respondent.

What happened

In Marshalek v. Schnell, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Clayton Francis Marshalek’s petition for habeas-corpus relief. Neither party objected to the recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error.

The court found no error in the recommendation’s reasoning. It adopted the recommendation, denied Marshalek’s petition and motion for summary judgment, dismissed the matter with prejudice, and ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered the order on July 13, 2021. The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for Marshalek’s petition because it adopts the recommendation without discussing that basis.

The detailed version

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

Case
Marshalek v. Schnell · No. 0:20-cv-00628
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
July 13, 2021

Background

Clayton Francis Marshalek filed a petition seeking habeas-corpus relief against Paul Schnell. The matter came before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s June 14, 2021, Report and Recommendation. The recommendation advised that the petition be denied, the action be dismissed with prejudice, and no certificate of appealability be granted.

No party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the objection period had expired. Under the cited federal statute and local rules, the district court therefore reviewed the unobjected-to recommendation for clear error rather than conducting de novo review of specific objections.

Ruling

The court reviewed the Report and Recommendation and found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. It ordered the following:

- The Report and Recommendation was adopted. - The motion for summary judgment was denied. - Marshalek’s petition was denied. - The matter was dismissed with prejudice. - No certificate of appealability would issue.

The order does not describe the underlying claims or explain the basis for denying the petition. It states only that the court found no error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning after clear-error review.

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.