Martinez-Salazar v. Garland
Martinez-Salazar v. Garland
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Oscar M.-S., Case No. 21-cv-1341 (WMW/JFD) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Tae D. Johnson, Marcos Charles, and Joel Brott, Respondents.
Before the Court is the June 28, 2022 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. (Dkt. 34.) No objections to the R&R have been filed. In the absence of timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error. Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The June 28, 2022 R&R, (Dkt. 34), is ADOPTED.
2. Petitioner Oscar M.-S.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Dkt. 1), is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 26, 2022 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Oscar M.-S., Case No. 21-cv-1341 (WMW/JFD) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Tae D. Johnson, Marcos Charles, and Joel Brott, Respondents.
Before the Court is the June 28, 2022 Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. (Dkt. 34.) No objections to the R&R have been filed. In the absence of timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error. Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The June 28, 2022 R&R, (Dkt. 34), is ADOPTED.
2. Petitioner Oscar M.-S.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Dkt. 1), is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 26, 2022 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.