noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error
How later courts described this case
- noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for clear error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Daciann D. Brown, Civ. No. 22-3183 (PAM/LIB)
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Michael Segal, Warden,
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated May 23, 2023. (Docket No. 12.) The
R&R recommends that Petitioner Daciann D. Brown’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus be denied as moot. Brown did not file any objections to the R&R and the time to
do so has passed. D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections
are made, but in the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793,
795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that district court need only review un-objected-to R&R for
clear error). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the
Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The R&R (Docket No. 12) is ADOPTED;
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED as
moot; and
3. This matter is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 15, 2023 s/Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge