Bell v. Birkholz
Bell v. Birkholz
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Deonte Bell, Civ. No. 21-1682 (PAM/LIB) Petitioner, v. ORDER
B. Birkholz and Michael Carvajal, Respondents.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated August 18, 2021. (Docket No. 6.)
The R&R recommends that Petitioner Deonte Bell’s Petition for habeas-corpus relief be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. No party objected 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. 6) is ADOPTED; and 2. The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: Monday, September 13, 2021 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Deonte Bell, Civ. No. 21-1682 (PAM/LIB) Petitioner, v. ORDER
B. Birkholz and Michael Carvajal, Respondents.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated August 18, 2021. (Docket No. 6.)
The R&R recommends that Petitioner Deonte Bell’s Petition for habeas-corpus relief be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. No party objected 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. 6) is ADOPTED; and 2. The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: Monday, September 13, 2021 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.