Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 23, 2023

Hymans v. Segal

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:22-cv-02983
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hymans v. Segal, Judge Blackwell denied Rena M. Hymans’s federal petition after finding no clear error in an unobjected-to recommendation.

Who this affects

Rena M. Hymans’s petition was denied. Warden Segal was the respondent, and the order accepted the recommendation against Hymans.

What happened

In Hymans v. Segal, Rena M. Hymans filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Warden Segal. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying allegations or requested relief.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. No one filed timely objections, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the recommendation and denied Hymans’s petition. The order does not explain the underlying reasons for the denial or decide the petition’s merits.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hymans v. Segal · No. 0:22-cv-02983
Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell
Date
Mar. 23, 2023

Background

Rena M. Hymans filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Warden Segal. The order does not describe the factual basis of the petition or the relief Hymans sought.

Review of the Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on February 2, 2023. No timely objections were filed. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error—a plainly mistaken conclusion apparent from the record. The court stated that it found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the Report and Recommendation and denied Hymans’s petition. The order does not state the grounds for the recommendation or otherwise analyze the petition’s underlying legal claims. Because the court resolved the matter by accepting the recommendation under clear-error review without merits analysis, this summary classifies the order as procedural.

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.