Urbanek v. Harpstead
Urbanek v. Harpstead
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Edward E. Urbanek, Case No. 0:21-cv-2352 (KMM/HB) Petitioner, v. ORDER Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of Human Services, et al., Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer, dated February 3, 2022. No objections to that R&R have been filed in the time period permitted.
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 4444813, at *1 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, as well as all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ACCEPTED; 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as untimely; 3. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot; 4. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 4] is DENIED as moot; 5. Petitioner’s motions for an order to show cause [ECF Nos. 7, 10] are DENIED as moot; 6. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 7. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: March 18, 2022 s/Katherine Menendez Katherine Menendez United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Edward E. Urbanek, Case No. 0:21-cv-2352 (KMM/HB) Petitioner, v. ORDER Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of Human Services, et al., Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer, dated February 3, 2022. No objections to that R&R have been filed in the time period permitted.
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 4444813, at *1 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, as well as all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge committed no error, clear or otherwise.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ACCEPTED; 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as untimely; 3. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot; 4. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 4] is DENIED as moot; 5. Petitioner’s motions for an order to show cause [ECF Nos. 7, 10] are DENIED as moot; 6. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 7. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: March 18, 2022 s/Katherine Menendez Katherine Menendez United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.