Young v. Eischen
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-03227
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Young v. Eischen, Chief Judge Schiltz adopted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Howard Young’s habeas petition was denied, and the matter was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; Warden B. Eischen was the respondent.
What happened
Young v. Eischen concerns a habeas petition filed by Howard Young, who represented himself, against Warden B. Eischen. The order does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.
A magistrate judge recommended a result, and no party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.
Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz adopted the recommendation, denied Young’s habeas petition, and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The order directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Young v. Eischen · No. 0:23-cv-03227
- Patrick Schiltz
- Feb. 5, 2024
Background
Howard Young filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden B. Eischen. The opinion identifies Young as representing himself. It does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the factual basis for the requested relief.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation. No party objected to it.
Court’s Review
Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Clear-error review asks whether the recommendation contains an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.
Disposition
The court ordered that:
- The Report and Recommendation was ADOPTED.
- Young’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was DENIED.
- The matter was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
The order directed that judgment be entered. It does not provide additional explanation of why the court lacked jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.