Glawe v. Rardin
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:22-cv-02423
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Glawe v. Rardin, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, granted Glawe’s waiver motion, denied his petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Michael Gregory Glawe, whose administrative-remedies motion was granted, petition was denied, and case was dismissed without prejudice; Jarid Rardin, the named respondent.
What happened
In Glawe v. Rardin, Michael Gregory Glawe filed a petition asking for relief under a federal custody law. A magistrate judge recommended a result, and no party objected.
The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It accepted the recommendation, granted Glawe’s motion to waive administrative remedies because of filing-time issues, denied his petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud issued the order on December 6, 2022. The order does not explain the underlying reason for denying the petition because the recommendation it accepted is not included in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Glawe v. Rardin · No. 0:22-cv-02423
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 6, 2022
Background
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on November 10, 2022. No party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The provided order says the court found no clear error, but it does not include the magistrate judge’s analysis or explain the underlying basis for denying the petition.
Motions and petition
Glawe moved to waive administrative remedies because of time issues in filing under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law used to challenge certain forms of custody. The court granted that motion. The court also ruled on Glawe’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a petition seeking court relief from unlawful custody or detention, although the order does not describe the petition’s specific claim.
Disposition
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation, granted Glawe’s motion to waive administrative remedies, denied Glawe’s petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar refiling, but the provided order does not state whether any other legal limitation would apply.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.