Larson v. Birkholz
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:21-cv-01990
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Larson v. Birkolz, Judge Menendez denied Larson’s Section 2241 petition and dismissed the action after finding no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Robert Larson’s Section 2241 petition was denied and his action was dismissed. The opinion does not describe any further practical effects.
What happened
In Robert Larson v. Warden B. Birkolz, Larson asked the court to grant his petition under Section 2241, a federal law used to challenge certain detention-related matters. The opinion does not describe the underlying claim.
No one objected to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s report and recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found no error.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez denied Larson’s petition and dismissed the action. The court ordered that judgment be entered, but the opinion does not explain whether it considered the underlying claim’s merits.
The detailed version
- Larson v. Birkholz · No. 0:21-cv-01990
- Katherine Menendez
- Oct. 20, 2022
Background
Robert Larson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not describe the factual basis of the petition or the relief Larson sought beyond the petition itself.
Report and Recommendation
The order addressed a report and recommendation prepared by United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer, dated June 6, 2022. The opinion notes that, because Magistrate Judge Bowbeer retired, the case was later reassigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.
No objections to the report and recommendation were filed within the permitted period. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a de novo review of disputed portions. The court stated that its review of the recommendation and the record showed no error, clear or otherwise.
Ruling
The court ordered that Robert Larson’s petition under Section 2241 was DENIED. It separately ordered that the action was DISMISSED and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not state whether the court reached the merits of the underlying habeas claim. Under the classification convention, this is a procedural order because the court resolved the matter through its review of the unobjected-to recommendation without merits analysis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.