Morrow v. Eischen
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:23-cv-02137
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Morrow v. Eischen, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied the moot habeas petition and RRC request, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
Petitioner Dale Dexter Morrow, Jr., and respondent B. Eischen, identified as the FPC-Duluth Warden.
What happened
In Morrow v. Eischen, Dale Dexter Morrow, Jr. asked the court to grant his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and to give him additional time in a Residential Reentry Center.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition as moot and denying the request for additional time. Morrow did not object before the deadline, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Finding no clear error, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied the petition as moot, denied the request for additional Residential Reentry Center time, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Morrow v. Eischen · No. 0:23-cv-02137
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- May 1, 2024
Background
Dale Dexter Morrow, Jr., the petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He also requested additional time in a Residential Reentry Center. The respondent is B. Eischen, identified in the caption as the FPC-Duluth Warden.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the habeas petition be denied as moot and that Morrow’s request for additional Residential Reentry Center time be denied. A matter is moot when the court can no longer provide effective relief. The provided opinion does not explain why the petition had become moot.
Morrow did not file objections to the recommendation, and the deadline for doing so had passed. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis or decision.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Morrow’s petition as moot, denied his request for additional Residential Reentry Center time, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.