Zoch v. Rardin
Zoch v. Rardin
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Darwin Lee Zoch, Civ. No. 23-669 (PAM/DLM) Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Jarid Rardin, Warden, Rochester FMC Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko dated May 25, 2023. (Docket No. 5.)
The R&R recommends that Petitioner Darwin Lee Zoch’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and this matter dismissed. Zoch did not file any objections 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. 5) is ADOPTED; 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; and 3. This matter is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 22, 2023 s/Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Darwin Lee Zoch, Civ. No. 23-669 (PAM/DLM) Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Jarid Rardin, Warden, Rochester FMC Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko dated May 25, 2023. (Docket No. 5.)
The R&R recommends that Petitioner Darwin Lee Zoch’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and this matter dismissed. Zoch did not file any objections 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. 5) is ADOPTED; 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; and 3. This matter is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 22, 2023 s/Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.