Padilla v. Segal
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Padilla v. Segal
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Darlene Lluvia Padilla, Civ. No. 23-1596 (PAM/JFD)
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Michael Segal, Warden,
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated December 11, 2023. (Docket No.
15.) The R&R recommends that Petitioner Darlene Lluvia Padilla’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus be denied because the Petition conclusively shows that Padilla is not
entitled to habeas relief. Padilla 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. 15) 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: January 10, 2024 s/Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Darlene Lluvia Padilla, Civ. No. 23-1596 (PAM/JFD)
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Michael Segal, Warden,
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated December 11, 2023. (Docket No.
15.) The R&R recommends that Petitioner Darlene Lluvia Padilla’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus be denied because the Petition conclusively shows that Padilla is not
entitled to habeas relief. Padilla 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. 15) 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: January 10, 2024 s/Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown