Walton v. United States
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:23-cv-02795
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Walton v. United States, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied Walton’s petition as moot, and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
James Walton’s habeas petition was denied as moot, and his matter was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The United States was the respondent.
What happened
James Walton asked the District of Minnesota to grant his petition for a court order concerning his detention under a federal habeas statute. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition as moot and dismissing the matter without prejudice because the court lacked authority to hear it.
Walton did not object to that recommendation before the deadline. Without objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied Walton’s petition as moot, and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Walton v. United States · No. 0:23-cv-02795
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Apr. 26, 2024
Background
James Walton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not explain the underlying circumstances or why the petition became moot. United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on April 3, 2024, recommending that the petition be denied as moot and that the matter be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Review of the Recommendation
Walton did not file objections, and the time for doing so had passed. Because there were no timely objections, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error based on the case record.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Walton’s petition as moot and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing, although the opinion does not address whether another filing would be permitted or successful. The court ordered judgment to be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.