Hogate v. Starr
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:20-cv-01295
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hogate v. Starr, Judge Magnuson denied the habeas petition and dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction.
Christine Hogate, the petitioner, and Warden Starr, the defendant; the petition was denied and the matter was dismissed.
What happened
In Hogate v. Starr, Christine Hogate filed a petition asking for relief under a federal law governing challenges to detention. The matter came before the court on a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Hogate did not object to the recommendation.
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the matter. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Hogate v. Starr · No. 0:20-cv-01295
- Paul Magnuson
- Aug. 6, 2021
Background Christine Hogate filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law allowing certain challenges to federal detention or custody. The case was before the court on a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Tony Leung. The recommendation advised dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it did not have authority to decide the petition. Hogate did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed.
Court’s Review When a party does not object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews it for clear error. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Ruling Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the matter. The order also directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not state any additional basis for the jurisdictional conclusion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.