Urbanek v. Harpstead
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:21-cv-02352
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Urbanek v. Harpstead, Judge Menendez denied Urbanek’s late habeas petition, denied related motions as moot, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Edward E. Urbanek’s habeas petition was denied as untimely, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The order also resolved his requests to proceed without paying fees, for appointed counsel, and for orders to show cause.
What happened
In Urbanek v. Harpstead, the court reviewed Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s report and recommendation after no one filed objections. The report addressed Edward E. Urbanek’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The court found no error in the report and recommendation. It denied the petition as untimely, meaning it was filed too late, and denied as moot the requests to proceed without paying fees, to appoint a lawyer, and for orders requiring a response.
Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the report and recommendation, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue.
The detailed version
- Urbanek v. Harpstead · No. 0:21-cv-02352
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
Edward E. Urbanek filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court relief concerning custody or detention, against Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of Human Services, and other defendants. The matter came before the district court on United Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s February 3, 2022, report and recommendation.
No objections were filed within the permitted time. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of disputed portions.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Menendez concluded that the magistrate judge had committed no error, clear or otherwise, and accepted the report and recommendation.
The court ordered the following:
- The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied as untimely. - The application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot. - The motion for appointment of counsel was denied as moot. - The motions for an order to show cause were denied as moot. - The case was dismissed with prejudice. - No certificate of appealability shall issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.