Acuna-Carmona v. FCI Sandstone
Acuna-Carmona v. FCI Sandstone
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FELIX ALBERTO ACUNA- Case No. 24-cv-4372 (LMP/DJF) CARMONA, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION FCI SANDSTONE, Warden, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster, entered December 23, 2024. ECF No. 6.
The R&R recommends denial of Plaintiff Felix Alberto Acuna-Carmona’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) and dismissal of this matter for lack of standing. Id. To the extent that Acuna-Carmona might have standing to bring one claim, the R&R concludes that Acuna-Carmona’s claim “would simply fail on the merits.” Id. at 4. Neither party objects to the R&R, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), so the Court reviews it for clear error, Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
The Court finds no error in the R&R. In the absence of any objections, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Acuna-Carmona’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; and 3. The above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 27, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FELIX ALBERTO ACUNA- Case No. 24-cv-4372 (LMP/DJF) CARMONA, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION FCI SANDSTONE, Warden, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster, entered December 23, 2024. ECF No. 6.
The R&R recommends denial of Plaintiff Felix Alberto Acuna-Carmona’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) and dismissal of this matter for lack of standing. Id. To the extent that Acuna-Carmona might have standing to bring one claim, the R&R concludes that Acuna-Carmona’s claim “would simply fail on the merits.” Id. at 4. Neither party objects to the R&R, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), so the Court reviews it for clear error, Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
The Court finds no error in the R&R. In the absence of any objections, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Acuna-Carmona’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; and 3. The above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 27, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.