Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 18, 2023

Streker v. Segal

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:23-cv-01522
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Streker v. Segal, Judge Menendez denied Streker’s habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

Who this affects

Nicole Streker’s habeas petition was denied and the matter was dismissed without prejudice; Michael Segal was the defendant.

What happened

In Streker v. Segal, Nicole Streker filed a petition asking for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not describe the underlying claim.

The court considered a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. No objections were filed, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no error and denied the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. She also dismissed the matter without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Streker v. Segal · No. 0:23-cv-01522
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
Aug. 18, 2023

Background

Nicole Streker filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Michael Segal. The opinion does not explain the underlying dispute or the relief Streker sought.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a report and recommendation on June 30, 2023. Neither party filed objections within the permitted period.

Court’s Review

Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of disputed issues. The court stated that, after reviewing the recommendation and the record, it found no error—clear or otherwise.

Ruling

Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered that the petition be denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court also ordered that the matter be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. Judgment was ordered to be entered.

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.