Graham v. USP-McCreary
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-01041
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Graham v. USP-McCreary, Judge Wright dismissed Graham’s petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied his bail-and-emergency-relief motion.
William Charles Graham’s petition was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and his motion for bail and emergency relief was denied. The order named USP-McCreary and the Federal Bureau of Prisons as respondents.
What happened
William Charles Graham filed a petition against USP-McCreary and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He also asked for bail and emergency relief.
The court reviewed two recommendations from Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz because no objections were filed. It found no clear error in those recommendations.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted both recommendations, dismissed Graham’s petition without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied his motion for bail and emergency relief.
The detailed version
- Graham v. USP-McCreary · No. 0:22-cv-01041
- Wilhelmina Wright
- July 12, 2022
Background
William Charles Graham filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against USP-McCreary and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He also filed a motion seeking an order granting bail and emergency relief.
Recommendations and Review
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued reports and recommendations on April 28, 2022, and May 25, 2022. Graham did not file objections. Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the recommendations for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error after reviewing the recommendations and the case record.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted both reports and recommendations. The court dismissed Graham’s habeas petition without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked power to hear that petition. The court also denied Graham’s motion for bail and emergency relief. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.