Arroyo v. Fikes
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:21-cv-02489
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Arroyo v. Fikes, Judge Menendez accepted the recommendation, denied habeas relief and a temporary restraining order, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Ruben Arroyo’s petition and temporary-restraining-order request were denied, and his action was dismissed without prejudice; Warden J. Fikes was the respondent.
What happened
Ruben Arroyo filed a petition for a court order concerning his detention under a federal law and also requested a temporary restraining order. The matter came before the court after Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson issued a report and recommendation.
No objections were filed. The court accepted the report and recommendation, denied Arroyo’s petition, denied his request for a temporary restraining order, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez entered the order on July 19, 2022. The order does not describe the underlying claims or explain the report and recommendation’s reasoning.
The detailed version
- Arroyo v. Fikes · No. 0:21-cv-02489
- Katherine Menendez
- July 19, 2022
Background
Ruben Arroyo was the petitioner, and Warden J. Fikes was the respondent. The order concerns Arroyo’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and his request for a temporary restraining order. The court considered a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on May 5, 2022.
Review of the Recommendation
The court stated that it would review any specifically challenged part of the recommendation from the beginning. Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court stated that it found no error, clear or otherwise.
Ruling
Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered that the report and recommendation be accepted. The court denied the § 2241 petition, denied Arroyo’s request for a temporary restraining order, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order does not provide the underlying reasoning or state whether the court reached the merits of the habeas claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.