Truong v. Von Blanckensee
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-09039
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Truong v. Von Blanckensee: Judge Engelmayer dismissed Truong’s habeas petition seeking transfer to Australia.
Peter Truong, whose petition seeking a court-ordered transfer from federal prison custody to Australia was dismissed; the respondent and the case were also affected by the case’s closure.
What happened
In Truong v. Von Blanckensee, Peter Truong asked the court to order his transfer from federal prison custody to Australia. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition because Truong’s claim was legally deficient.
No party objected to that recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error—an obvious mistake—and found none. It adopted the recommendation in full.
Judge Engelmayer dismissed Truong’s petition in its entirety and directed the clerk to close the case. The court also stated that the failure to object waived appellate review.
The detailed version
- Truong v. Von Blanckensee · No. 1:18-cv-09039
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
Peter Truong filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking the court to order his transfer from federal prison custody to Australia. The opinion states that a magistrate judge, Debra C. Freeman, recommended dismissing the petition in its entirety because Truong’s claim was deficient as a matter of law. The opinion incorporates the magistrate judge’s factual summary rather than repeating it.
Court’s analysis
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court therefore applied clear-error review, which asks whether the record shows an obvious mistake. After reviewing the report, the court found no facial error in its conclusions and adopted the report in its entirety.
The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review, based on the warning in the report that an objection had to be filed within 14 days.
Ruling
The court dismissed Truong’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in its entirety and directed the clerk to close the case.
Caption note
The supplied case name is “Truong v. Von Blanckensee,” but the opinion text’s caption identifies the respondent as James Petrucci. The opinion text does not explain this discrepancy.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.