Wilson v. Rardin
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Wilson v. Rardin
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Kenneth Wilson, Civ. No. 23-1653 (PAM/ECW)
Petitioner,
v. ORDER
Warden Jared Rardin, Warden; Collette
Peters, BOP Director; and Merrick
Garland, USAG,
Respondents.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated April 15, 2024. (Docket
No. 20.) The R&R recommends that Petitioner Kenneth Wilson’s Petition for habeas-
corpus relief be denied and this action dismissed without prejudice. No party objected 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. 20) is ADOPTED;
2. The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; and
3. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 15, 2024 s/Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Kenneth Wilson, Civ. No. 23-1653 (PAM/ECW)
Petitioner,
v. ORDER
Warden Jared Rardin, Warden; Collette
Peters, BOP Director; and Merrick
Garland, USAG,
Respondents.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright dated April 15, 2024. (Docket
No. 20.) The R&R recommends that Petitioner Kenneth Wilson’s Petition for habeas-
corpus relief be denied and this action dismissed without prejudice. No party objected 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. 20) is ADOPTED;
2. The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; and
3. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 15, 2024 s/Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown