Foos v. Eischen
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:22-cv-00398
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Foos v. Eischen, Judge Blackwell accepted an unobjected-to recommendation, denied Foos’s Section 2241 petition, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
Michael Justin Foos’s § 2241 petition was denied, and his matter was dismissed with prejudice; B. Eischen was the respondent.
What happened
Foos v. Eischen involved Michael Justin Foos’s petition asking for relief under a federal law governing challenges to detention. The opinion says the matter came before the court on a magistrate judge’s recommendation dated March 14, 2023.
No one filed timely objections to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none. The opinion provided does not describe the underlying basis for the petition or the recommendation.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the recommendation, denied Foos’s petition, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court also directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Foos v. Eischen · No. 0:22-cv-00398
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
Michael Justin Foos filed a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. B. Eischen, identified in the caption as the FPC-Duluth Warden, was the respondent. The opinion reviewed here concerns the district court’s action on a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on March 14, 2023.
Review of the Recommendation
No timely objections were filed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake. The court stated that it found no clear error. The provided opinion does not include the magistrate judge’s reasoning or explain the underlying issue raised by the petition.
Ruling
The court accepted the March 14, 2023 Report and Recommendation. It denied Foos’s petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dismissed the matter with prejudice, and directed that judgment be entered. Because this order adopted the recommendation after clear-error review and does not itself analyze the petition’s underlying merits, it is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.