Vanderlinden v. Eishen
Vanderlinden v. Eishen
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Paul R. Vanderlinden, Civ. No. 23-250 (JWB/DLM) Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE B. Eishen, Warden, FPC Duluth, Respondent.
Paul R. Vanderlinden, FPC Duluth, PO Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814, pro se Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, Esq., and Lucas B. Draisey, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office, counsel for Respondent.
The above matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko dated June 15, 2023. (Doc. No. 16.) No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time permitted. In the absence of timely objections, the 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). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s Reply Brief was received by the Court on March 20, 2023. (Doc. No. 12.) Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for an extension to file his Reply Brief (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT; 2. The June 15, 2023 R&R (Doc. No. 16) is ACCEPTED; and 3. Plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: July 10, 2023 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Paul R. Vanderlinden, Civ. No. 23-250 (JWB/DLM) Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE B. Eishen, Warden, FPC Duluth, Respondent.
Paul R. Vanderlinden, FPC Duluth, PO Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814, pro se Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, Esq., and Lucas B. Draisey, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office, counsel for Respondent.
The above matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko dated June 15, 2023. (Doc. No. 16.) No objections have been filed to that R&R in the time permitted. In the absence of timely objections, the 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). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s Reply Brief was received by the Court on March 20, 2023. (Doc. No. 12.) Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for an extension to file his Reply Brief (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT; 2. The June 15, 2023 R&R (Doc. No. 16) is ACCEPTED; and 3. Plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: July 10, 2023 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell JERRY W. BLACKWELL United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.