Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 7, 2022

Spottswood v. St. Croix County, WI

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:21-cv-02258
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Spottswood v. St. Croix County, Judge Wright adopted a report, denied Spottswood’s habeas petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Who this affects

Shawn Clarke Spottswood’s habeas petition was denied, his application to proceed without paying filing fees and motion for adequate representation were denied as moot, and the action was dismissed without prejudice. The order also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue.

What happened

Shawn Clarke Spottswood filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against St. Croix County, WI; Interstate Compact Ramsey Co.; MN Adult Probation; and Susan Benson. A magistrate judge previously issued a report and recommendation, and no objections were filed.

The court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error and found none. The order does not state the underlying reason for denying the petition because the report and recommendation is not included in the provided text.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the report and recommendation, denied the habeas petition, denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, denied the motion for adequate representation as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue.

The detailed version

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

Case
Spottswood v. St. Croix County, WI · No. 0:21-cv-02258
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
Jan. 7, 2022

Background

Shawn Clarke Spottswood was the petitioner. The respondents were St. Croix County, WI; Interstate Compact Ramsey Co.; MN Adult Probation; and Susan Benson. Spottswood filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, an application to proceed without paying filing fees, and a motion for adequate representation.

On October 14, 2021, then-United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez issued a report and recommendation. No objections were filed. The order states that the Clerk mailed the report and recommendation to Spottswood’s last known address, but the mailing was returned as undeliverable. Spottswood had not provided an alternative address, and the court declined to postpone its decision.

Court’s Review

Because no timely objections were filed, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation. The provided opinion does not include the report and recommendation or explain the underlying basis for denying the habeas petition.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that:

- Spottswood’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was DENIED. - His application to proceed without paying filing fees was DENIED AS MOOT. - His motion for adequate representation was DENIED AS MOOT. - The action was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. - No certificate of appealability would issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

The order 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.