Kong v. Segal
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:23-cv-01285
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Kong v. Segal, Judge Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied Kong’s petition, and dismissed the matter.
Sui Yuet Kong’s petition was denied, and the matter was dismissed. Michael Segal was the respondent identified as the warden.
What happened
Kong v. Segal involved Sui Yuet Kong’s petition seeking relief through a court proceeding that challenges custody. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition because it conclusively showed Kong was not entitled to relief.
Kong did not object to that recommendation within the required time. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues.
Judge Magnuson found no error and adopted the recommendation. The court denied Kong’s petition and dismissed the matter.
The detailed version
- Kong v. Segal · No. 0:23-cv-01285
- Paul Magnuson
- July 28, 2023
Background
Sui Yuet Kong filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Michael Segal, identified as the warden. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on July 5, 2023, recommending that the petition be denied because the petition conclusively showed Kong was not entitled to habeas relief.
Kong did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so had passed.
Court’s Review
When a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the challenged portions independently. Because Kong filed no objections, Judge Magnuson reviewed the recommendation only for clear error. The order states that the court found no error, clear or otherwise, in Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s reasoning. The order does not provide further analysis of the underlying basis for denying habeas relief.
Disposition
Judge Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied Kong’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the matter. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.