Kuzmenko v. Warden, FCI Waseca
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Vera Kuzmenko, Civ. No. 24-4381 (PAM/LIB) Petitioner, v. ORDER Warden, FCI Waseca, Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated January 3, 2025. (Docket No. 5.)
The R&R recommends dismissing Petitioner Kuzmenko’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as she is not eligible to be to transferred to supervised release and her prerelease- custody claim is not cognizable in a habeas petition. Petitioner 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. 5) is ADOPTED; and 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 31, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Vera Kuzmenko, Civ. No. 24-4381 (PAM/LIB) Petitioner, v. ORDER Warden, FCI Waseca, Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated January 3, 2025. (Docket No. 5.)
The R&R recommends dismissing Petitioner Kuzmenko’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as she is not eligible to be to transferred to supervised release and her prerelease- custody claim is not cognizable in a habeas petition. Petitioner 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. 5) is ADOPTED; and 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 31, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.