Walton v. United States
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Walton v. United States
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
James Walton, Case No. 23-CV-2795 (JMB/DLM)
Petitioner,
ORDER ON REPORT AND
v.
RECOMMENDATION
United States of America,
Respondent.
This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United
States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko dated April 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 14.) The R&R
recommends that Petitioner James Walton’s for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(Doc. No. 1) be denied as moot and this matter be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Doc. No. 14.) Walton did not file any objections
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. 14) is ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner James Walton’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1)
is DENIED AS MOOT; and
3. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 26, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
James Walton, Case No. 23-CV-2795 (JMB/DLM)
Petitioner,
ORDER ON REPORT AND
v.
RECOMMENDATION
United States of America,
Respondent.
This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United
States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko dated April 3, 2024. (Doc. No. 14.) The R&R
recommends that Petitioner James Walton’s for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(Doc. No. 1) be denied as moot and this matter be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Doc. No. 14.) Walton did not file any objections
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. 14) is ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner James Walton’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1)
is DENIED AS MOOT; and
3. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 26, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court Reference
- Status
- Unknown