Ford v. Fikes
Ford v. Fikes
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DeJuan Ford, Civ. No. 20-238 (PAM/HB) Petitioner, v. ORDER Warden Fikes, Respondent.
The above matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer dated July 6, 2020. The R&R recommends denying both the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, and dismissing this matter with prejudice. Petitioner did not object to the R&R and the time to do so has passed.
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Having failed to object, Petitioner waived his right to that review. United States v. Wise, 588 F.3d 531, 537 n.5 (8th Cir. 2009). Even had he objected, however, the Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusions that Petitioner’s sentence-calculation claim is contrary to federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 10) is ADOPTED; 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; 3. Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and 4. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: August 3, 2020 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DeJuan Ford, Civ. No. 20-238 (PAM/HB) Petitioner, v. ORDER Warden Fikes, Respondent.
The above matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer dated July 6, 2020. The R&R recommends denying both the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, and dismissing this matter with prejudice. Petitioner did not object to the R&R and the time to do so has passed.
This Court must review de novo any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Having failed to object, Petitioner waived his right to that review. United States v. Wise, 588 F.3d 531, 537 n.5 (8th Cir. 2009). Even had he objected, however, the Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusions that Petitioner’s sentence-calculation claim is contrary to federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R (Docket No. 10) is ADOPTED; 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; 3. Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and 4. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: August 3, 2020 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.