Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 25, 2022

McAdory v. United States

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:22-cv-00769
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McAdory v. United States, Judge Wright adopted an unchallenged recommendation, denied McAdory’s habeas petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

Who this affects

Carlos Lattrell McAdory, whose habeas petition was denied and whose matter was dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

In McAdory v. United States, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Carlos Lattrell McAdory’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. No party filed objections to the recommendation.

Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. It found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied McAdory’s petition and dismissed the matter without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling.

The detailed version

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

Case
McAdory v. United States · No. 0:22-cv-00769
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
July 25, 2022

Background

Carlos Lattrell McAdory filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the United States of America. The court considered an April 27, 2022 report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. The opinion states that no objections to the report and recommendation were filed.

Court’s Analysis

When no timely objections are filed, the court reviews a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. Judge Wright reviewed the report and recommendation and found no clear error. The opinion does not describe the underlying grounds for McAdory’s petition or the report and recommendation’s detailed reasoning.

Disposition

The court adopted the April 27, 2022 report and recommendation, denied McAdory’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.