Brown v. Segal
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:22-cv-03183
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Brown v. Segal, Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied Brown’s habeas petition as moot, and dismissed the matter.
Daciann D. Brown’s petition was denied as moot, and the matter was dismissed. Michael Segal, identified as warden, was the respondent.
What happened
In Brown v. Segal, a magistrate judge recommended denying Daciann D. Brown’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as moot, meaning the court treated it as no longer presenting a live issue.
Brown did not object to the recommendation before the deadline. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found no error in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied Brown’s petition as moot, and dismissed the matter.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Segal · No. 0:22-cv-03183
- Paul Magnuson
- June 15, 2023
Background
Daciann D. Brown filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Michael Segal, identified in the caption as warden. The matter came before the district court on a report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated May 23, 2023. The recommendation proposed denying Brown’s petition as moot.
Court’s Review
Brown did not file objections, and the time to do so had passed. When a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews those portions of the recommendation independently. Without objections, the court reviews the recommendation for clear error. The court reviewed the recommendation under that standard and found no error, clear or otherwise, in Judge Brisbois’s reasoning.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the report and recommendation, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the matter. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.