Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 2, 2024

Heil v. Eischen

Judge
Jeffrey Bryan
Docket
0:23-cv-03845
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Heil v. Eischen, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied Heil’s petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

Who this affects

Tanner Jon Heil’s petition was denied, and the matter was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not describe any additional effect on the parties.

What happened

In Heil v. Eischen, Tanner Jon Heil filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against B. Eischen, the warden identified in the case.

No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court reviewed it for clear error, found none, adopted it, denied Heil’s petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan signed the order on February 2, 2024. The opinion does not explain the recommendation’s underlying reasoning.

The detailed version

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

Case
Heil v. Eischen · No. 0:23-cv-03845
Judge
Jeffrey M. Bryan
Date
Feb. 2, 2024

Background

Tanner Jon Heil filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against B. Eischen, identified as the warden of FPC Duluth. The opinion does not describe the specific claim or relief Heil sought.

Review of the Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation. No party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied Heil’s petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal does not itself bar a later filing. The opinion does not state why the petition was denied or whether the court reached the petition’s underlying merits. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the opinion does not show that the court reached the underlying question presented by the petition. The court’s order was signed by Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan.

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.