Hamer v. Segal
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Hamer v. Segal
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rhonda A. Hamer, Case No. 24-CV-02886 (JMB/TNL)
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
Michael Segal, Warden,
Respondent.
Rhonda A. Hamer, self-represented.
Trevor Brown and Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondent Michael Segal.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated October 24, 2024. (Doc. No. 9.) The
R&R recommends that Hamer’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot,
as Hamer has received the relief sought in her petition. (See id. at 3.) Neither party has
objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has now passed. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the 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).
Finding no clear error, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-
captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. No. 9) is ADOPTED.
2. Hamer’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED
AS MOOT.
3. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rhonda A. Hamer, Case No. 24-CV-02886 (JMB/TNL)
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
Michael Segal, Warden,
Respondent.
Rhonda A. Hamer, self-represented.
Trevor Brown and Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondent Michael Segal.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated October 24, 2024. (Doc. No. 9.) The
R&R recommends that Hamer’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot,
as Hamer has received the relief sought in her petition. (See id. at 3.) Neither party has
objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has now passed. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the 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).
Finding no clear error, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-
captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. No. 9) is ADOPTED.
2. Hamer’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED
AS MOOT.
3. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court Reference
- Status
- Unknown