Spraker v. Segal
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-01235
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Spraker v. Segal, Judge Menendez accepted the recommendation, denied Spraker’s habeas petition, and dismissed the action.
Susan Spraker, whose petition was denied, and Michael Segal, identified as the respondent and warden; the action was dismissed.
What happened
Susan Spraker filed a habeas petition against Michael Segal, identified as the warden. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition.
Spraker did not object to that recommendation within the permitted time. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full review of specific objections.
Judge Katherine Menendez found no error, accepted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Spraker v. Segal · No. 0:23-cv-01235
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 18, 2023
Background
Susan Spraker filed a habeas petition against Michael Segal, identified in the caption as the warden. The matter came before the court on a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster. The recommendation was that the petition be denied.
Review of the Recommendation
Spraker did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation within the permitted period. When no specific objections are filed, the court reviews the recommendation for clear error. Clear-error review asks whether the record shows an obvious mistake.
Ruling
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the record, Judge Katherine Menendez found no error. The court accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for denying the habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.