Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 2, 2023

Taylor, II v. Fikes

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:20-cv-01364
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
3
HabeasCivil ProcedurePreliminary InjunctionPro Se
In one sentence

In Taylor v. Fikes, Judge Blackwell denied Taylor’s § 2241 petition, denied his preliminary-injunction request as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Who this affects

The order directly affected Ephren White Taylor, II’s § 2241 petition and request for a preliminary injunction; the action was dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

Ephren White Taylor, II challenged a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny his petition seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Taylor represented himself and objected to the recommendation, also requesting judicial notice and filing an exhibit.

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. It found no legal or factual error requiring a different result and accepted the recommendation in full. The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for denying the habeas petition.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled Taylor’s objections, accepted the recommendation, denied the § 2241 petition, denied the preliminary-injunction request as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Taylor, II v. Fikes · No. 0:20-cv-01364
Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell
Date
Feb. 2, 2023

Background

Ephren White Taylor, II filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Taylor appeared without a lawyer. United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied without prejudice. Taylor objected to that recommendation and separately requested judicial notice, filing an exhibit with that request.

Review of the Recommendation

The district court independently reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Taylor specifically objected. It reviewed the remaining portions for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court stated that Taylor’s objections did not identify an error of law or fact warranting rejection of the recommendation. After reviewing the rest of the recommendation, the court found it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and accepted it in its entirety.

Rulings

The court overruled Taylor’s objections and accepted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Taylor’s § 2241 habeas petition, denied his request for a preliminary injunction as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not provide the underlying substantive reason for denying the habeas petition; it resolves the matter by accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation after reviewing Taylor’s objections.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.