Walton v. United States
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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.