Goich v. Birkholz
Goich v. Birkholz
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rodney J. Goich, File No. 19-3064 (ECT/BRT) Petitioner, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Warden Birkholz, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson issued a Report and Recommendation on August 3, 2020. ECF No. 9. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Finding no clear error, and based on all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] is ACCEPTED.
2. To the extent Petitioner challenges his monetary fine and the loss of telephone, e-mail, and visiting privileges, Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. In all other respects, Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 26, 2020 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rodney J. Goich, File No. 19-3064 (ECT/BRT) Petitioner, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Warden Birkholz, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson issued a Report and Recommendation on August 3, 2020. ECF No. 9. No party has objected to that Report and Recommendation, and it is therefore reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Finding no clear error, and based on all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] is ACCEPTED.
2. To the extent Petitioner challenges his monetary fine and the loss of telephone, e-mail, and visiting privileges, Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. In all other respects, Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 26, 2020 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.