James v. Pugh
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:23-cv-00572
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In James v. Pugh, Judge Magnuson denied James’s petition as late, denied his fee application as moot, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
Eddie K. James’s habeas petition was denied as untimely, his fee application was denied as moot, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. Jesse Pugh was the named respondent.
What happened
In James v. Pugh, the court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation that Eddie K. James’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied as untimely. James did not object to the recommendation.
The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It adopted the recommendation, denied the petition as untimely, denied James’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot, and directed that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- James v. Pugh · No. 0:23-cv-00572
- Paul Magnuson
- May 31, 2023
Background
The court reviewed a report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated May 1, 2023. The recommendation stated that Eddie K. James’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied as untimely. The opinion does not describe the underlying habeas claim.
James did not file objections to the report and recommendation, and the deadline for doing so had expired. Without specific objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full review of the disputed issues.
Rulings
The court found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. It therefore:
- adopted the report and recommendation; - denied the habeas petition as untimely; - denied the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot; - ordered that no certificate of appealability issue; and - dismissed the matter with prejudice.
A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the dismissed matter. The order directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.