Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 22, 2021

Stellick v. DOC Minnesota

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:21-cv-02016
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stellick v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Judge Magnuson denied Stellick’s confinement challenge without prejudice because he had not exhausted state remedies.

Who this affects

Dylan Stellick’s petition was denied without prejudice, leaving the petition’s underlying confinement challenge unresolved in this order; his fee application was denied as moot.

What happened

In Stellick v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Dylan Stellick filed a petition challenging his confinement. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing it without prejudice because Stellick had not completed available state administrative procedures and had not pursued the case.

No party objected to the recommendation by the deadline. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. It also decided that Stellick’s application to proceed without paying court fees was moot.

Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, denied the fee application as moot, and ordered that no certificate of appealability would issue.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stellick v. DOC Minnesota · No. 0:21-cv-02016
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
Nov. 22, 2021

Background Dylan Stellick filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court request challenging the legality of a person’s custody or confinement. The case was before the court on Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty’s November 1, 2021, Report and Recommendation. The recommendation advised dismissing the petition without prejudice because Stellick had failed to exhaust state administrative remedies and failed to prosecute the case.

Review of the Recommendation No party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the objection deadline had passed. Under the governing statute and local rules, the court reviewed the unobjected-to recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of each issue. The court 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 Stellick’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. It denied Stellick’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court also ordered that no certificate of appealability would issue and directed entry of judgment.

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.