Kellum v. Kallis
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:21-cv-01664
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Kellum v. Kallis, Judge Menendez denied Kellum’s petition and dismissed the case without prejudice after finding no error in the recommendation.
James Nathan Kellum’s petition was denied and his action was dismissed without prejudice; Warden Steve Kallis was the respondent.
What happened
In Kellum v. Kallis, James Nathan Kellum filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The matter came before the court on Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s January 31, 2022 Report and Recommendation.
No objections were filed within the permitted time. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found no error, clear or otherwise, after reviewing the recommendation and the record.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez denied the petition and dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Kellum v. Kallis · No. 0:21-cv-01664
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 22, 2022
Background
James Nathan Kellum was the petitioner, and Warden Steve Kallis was the respondent. The order concerns Kellum’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court considered a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois on January 31, 2022.
Court’s Review
No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed within the permitted period. When no objections are filed, the court reviews the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting the de novo review used for specifically objected-to portions. The court stated that, after carefully reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the record, it found no error, clear or otherwise.
Disposition
The court ordered that the petition be denied and that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The order also directed that judgment be entered. This order does not explain the underlying grounds for the petition or provide a merits analysis of the claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court resolved the matter by reviewing an unobjected-to recommendation for clear error and did not analyze the petition’s underlying merits in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.