Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 12, 2023

Burgess v. Warden of Rochester FMC

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:22-cv-02363
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Burgess v. Warden of Rochester FMC, Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied Burgess’s habeas petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

Who this affects

Albert C. Burgess, Jr.; the Warden of Rochester FMC

What happened

In Burgess v. Warden of Rochester FMC, Albert C. Burgess, Jr. asked the court for habeas relief. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and dismissing the matter without prejudice.

Burgess did not object to that recommendation. The court reviewed it for clear error, found none, adopted it, denied the petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson issued the order on July 12, 2023. The opinion does not explain the underlying reason for the recommended denial.

The detailed version

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

Case
Burgess v. Warden of Rochester FMC · No. 0:22-cv-02363
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
July 12, 2023

Background

Albert C. Burgess, Jr. filed a petition seeking habeas relief against the Warden of Rochester FMC. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation on June 12, 2023, recommending that the petition be denied and the matter dismissed without prejudice.

Burgess did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed. When no specific objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court reviews it for clear error rather than conducting a full fresh review.

Ruling

The court reviewed the report and recommendation and found no error, including no clear error, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. It adopted the report and recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing, although the opinion does not explain the underlying basis for the dismissal.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not decide the underlying habeas question on the merits or state why the petition was denied.

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.