Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 26, 2023

Dupree v. Segal

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:23-cv-01676
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Dupree v. Segal, Judge Wright adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Dupree’s petition, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

Who this affects

Linda Sade’ Dupree’s petition was denied, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice; Michael Segal was the respondent.

What happened

In Dupree v. Segal, Linda Sade’ Dupree filed a petition against Michael Segal. The court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving no objections.

Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the recommendation, denied Dupree’s petition, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for the petition or provide a merits analysis.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dupree v. Segal · No. 0:23-cv-01676
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
July 26, 2023

Background

Linda Sade’ Dupree filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Michael Segal. The court considered a June 21, 2023 report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko.

Court’s Review

No objections were filed to the report and recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court reviewed the report and recommendation, along with the case records, and found no clear error.

Ruling

The court adopted the June 21, 2023 report and recommendation. It denied Dupree’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the matter with prejudice, meaning the matter may not be refiled. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or explain whether the court reached their merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.