Alkamel v. Eischen
Alkamel v. Eischen
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Malik Noaman Alkamel, File No. 22-cv-1630 (ECT/ECW) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION B. Eischen, FPC-Duluth Warden, IN PART Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on February 9, 2022. ECF No. 12. 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). I find no clear error with the R&R’s legal conclusions that Petitioner’s habeas petition should be denied on mootness and ripeness grounds, and that the action should be dismissed. However, because this dismissal is one for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the action should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, based on the R&R, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 12] is ACCEPTED in part; 2. Plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1] is DENIED; and 3. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 8, 2023 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Malik Noaman Alkamel, File No. 22-cv-1630 (ECT/ECW) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION B. Eischen, FPC-Duluth Warden, IN PART Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on February 9, 2022. ECF No. 12. 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). I find no clear error with the R&R’s legal conclusions that Petitioner’s habeas petition should be denied on mootness and ripeness grounds, and that the action should be dismissed. However, because this dismissal is one for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the action should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, based on the R&R, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 12] is ACCEPTED in part; 2. Plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1] is DENIED; and 3. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 8, 2023 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.