Sharma v. Eischen
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Sharma v. Eischen
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Aditya Raj Sharma, Civ. No. 24-2619 (JWB/DJF)
Petitioner,
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART
v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Billy Eischen, Warden, FPC Duluth,
Respondent.
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on August 28, 2024. (Doc. No. 20.) No objections have been
filed to that R&R in the time permitted. Absent timely objections, the R&R is reviewed
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, no clear error is found.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The August 28, 2024 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is
ACCEPTED IN PART to the extent it recommends dismissal for lack of jurisdiction;
2. Petitioner Aditya Raj Sharma’s amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. Nos. 1, 4) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction;
3. Petitioner’s Motion for Expedited Hearing (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED;
4. Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions and Criminal Charges (Doc. No. 11) is
DENIED; and
5. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: September 13, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Aditya Raj Sharma, Civ. No. 24-2619 (JWB/DJF)
Petitioner,
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART
v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Billy Eischen, Warden, FPC Duluth,
Respondent.
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on August 28, 2024. (Doc. No. 20.) No objections have been
filed to that R&R in the time permitted. Absent timely objections, the R&R is reviewed
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, no clear error is found.
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The August 28, 2024 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is
ACCEPTED IN PART to the extent it recommends dismissal for lack of jurisdiction;
2. Petitioner Aditya Raj Sharma’s amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. Nos. 1, 4) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction;
3. Petitioner’s Motion for Expedited Hearing (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED;
4. Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions and Criminal Charges (Doc. No. 11) is
DENIED; and
5. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: September 13, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown