Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 11, 2024

Gallop v. Segal

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:24-cv-01357
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gallop v. Segal, Judge Blackwell denied Teresa Gallop’s petition after accepting an unopposed recommendation.

Who this affects

Teresa Gallop’s petition was denied; Michael Segal was the respondent. The opinion does not identify the petition’s underlying claims.

What happened

In Gallop v. Segal, Teresa Gallop filed a petition against Michael Segal, identified as a warden. The opinion does not describe the petition’s claims or the relief it requested.

Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a report and recommendation on May 14, 2024. No objections were filed within the allowed time, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the report and recommendation and denied Gallop’s petition. The court directed that judgment be entered.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gallop v. Segal · No. 0:24-cv-01357
Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell
Date
June 11, 2024

Background

Teresa Gallop filed a petition against Michael Segal, Warden. The opinion does not state the petition’s claims, legal grounds, or requested relief. The court’s order relies on a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz on May 14, 2024.

Review of the Recommendation

No objections to the report and recommendation were filed within the permitted time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis or conclusion. The court stated that it found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the May 14, 2024 report and recommendation and denied Teresa Gallop’s petition. The court ordered that judgment be entered. Because the report and recommendation is not included in the opinion text, this order does not explain the petition’s underlying issues or the reasons for denying it.

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.