Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 27, 2024

Konz v. Witt

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:23-cv-00679
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Konz v. Witt, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied Konz’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Who this affects

Deanna Sue Konz’s § 2241 petition was denied and her action was dismissed without prejudice. The respondents were affected by the dismissal of the action.

What happened

Deanna Sue Konz filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Dawanna S. Witt and other respondents.

A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on February 28, 2024. No party objected, so the court reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Konz’s petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Konz v. Witt · No. 0:23-cv-00679
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Mar. 27, 2024

Background

Deanna Sue Konz filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Dawanna S. Witt, Hennepin County Sheriff; Michael K. Browne, Presiding Judge; Andrea Lyn Martin, District Attorney; Daniel Moreno, Judge; Elizabeth Scoggin, District Attorney; Amanda Stokes, Public Defender; and Daniel Morano, Judge.

Recommendation and review

Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation on February 28, 2024. No party objected. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The order states that the court found no clear error. It does not describe the underlying basis for Konz’s petition or provide a merits analysis.

Ruling

Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied Konz’s petition under § 2241 and dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.

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.