Waters v. United States
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-01631
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Waters v. United States, Judge Menendez adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the matter.
Amber Denise Waters’s petition was denied and the matter was dismissed; the United States of America was the respondent.
What happened
Amber Denise Waters petitioned the federal court for habeas relief against the United States of America. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or the reason for seeking relief.
No party objected to Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster’s November 27, 2023 recommendation. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez adopted the recommendation in full, denied Waters’s petition, and dismissed the matter. The order directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Waters v. United States · No. 0:22-cv-01631
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 2, 2024
Background
Amber Denise Waters filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the United States of America. The order does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the relief Waters requested.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation dated November 27, 2023. No objections were filed within the permitted period. Because there were no objections, Judge Menendez reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues. The court stated that it found no error, clear or otherwise, and adopted the recommendation in full.
Ruling
The court ordered that Waters’s habeas petition be DENIED. It also ordered that the matter be DISMISSED and directed entry of judgment. The order does not state the underlying basis for denying the petition or whether the court reached the merits of Waters’s habeas claims. This summary classifies the order as procedural because it adopts a recommendation after clear-error review without providing a merits analysis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.