Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 26, 2022

Oscar M. v. Garland

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:21-cv-01341
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Oscar M.-S. v. Garland: Judge Wright denied the habeas petition as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Oscar M.-S.’s petition was denied as moot, and his action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order concerned the respondents named in the case but made no additional ruling about them.

What happened

In Oscar M.-S. v. Garland, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Oscar M.-S.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. No one filed objections to the recommendation.

Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court adopted the recommendation.

The court denied Oscar M.-S.’s petition as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that judgment be entered.

The detailed version

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

Case
Oscar M. v. Garland · No. 0:21-cv-01341
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
July 26, 2022

Background

Oscar M.-S. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Tae D. Johnson, Marcos Charles, and Joel Brott. The court considered a June 28, 2022 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty.

Court’s Analysis

No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. Under the applicable review standard, the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation. It denied Oscar M.-S.’s habeas petition as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order directed that judgment be entered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.