Miles v. Kallis
- David Doty
- 0:21-cv-02415
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Miles v. Kallis, Judge Doty adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed Miles’s habeas petition as an abuse of the writ, and denied two motions.
Kelvin J. Miles’s habeas petition was dismissed as an abuse of the writ, and his motions for default judgment and to withdraw were denied. The respondents were Warden Kallis Federal Medical Center and the United States of America.
What happened
In Miles v. Kallis, Kelvin J. Miles challenged his detention through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation that addressed the petition.
Miles objected to the recommendation, but the court said he repeated the arguments he had already made. The court reviewed the recommendation and his objection and found the recommendation thorough, well reasoned, and correct.
Judge David S. Doty adopted the recommendation in full, dismissed the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ, denied Miles’s motion for default judgment, and denied his motion to withdraw.
The detailed version
- Miles v. Kallis · No. 0:21-cv-02415
- David Doty
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
Kelvin J. Miles filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The matter came before the district court on a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on September 20, 2022. Miles also filed a motion for default judgment and a motion to withdraw.
Objection and Review
Miles timely objected to the report and recommendation. The court said that his objection simply repeated arguments he had previously made. The court explained that it reviews specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation independently. It also noted that filings by people representing themselves without lawyers are read liberally, although the court does not add facts or create legal theories for them.
After reviewing the report and recommendation and Miles’s objection, the court found the recommendation thorough, well reasoned, and correct. The order does not provide additional explanation of the underlying habeas claims beyond adopting the recommendation.
Ruling
The court ordered that the report and recommendation be adopted in its entirety. It dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus as an abuse of the writ. It denied the motion for default judgment and denied the motion to withdraw. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the habeas petition was dismissed on the threshold ground that it was an abuse of the writ, rather than being decided on the merits in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.