Dusek v. Vaught
Dusek v. Vaught
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MATTHEW DUSEK, Case No. 25-cv-0379 (LMP/SGE) Petitioner, v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TIM VAUGHT, Respondent.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 11, of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, which recommends dismissing Petitioner Matthew Dusek’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1.1 No objections have been filed to the R&R in the time period permitted, and it is therefore reviewed 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 of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED; The copy of the R&R served on Dusek’s last known address was returned as undeliverable. See June 11, 2025 Docket Entry. The Clerk’s Office attempted to mail the R&R to Dusek at the Federal Correctional Institution - Sandstone. As the R&R notes, Dusek has now been moved to a Residential Reentry Center. ECF No. 11 at 3. Despite Dusek’s duty to do so, he has not provided his new address.
2. The Motion for Expedited Review and Consideration (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as moot; and 3. Dusek’s petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 30, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MATTHEW DUSEK, Case No. 25-cv-0379 (LMP/SGE) Petitioner, v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TIM VAUGHT, Respondent.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 11, of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, which recommends dismissing Petitioner Matthew Dusek’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1.1 No objections have been filed to the R&R in the time period permitted, and it is therefore reviewed 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 of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED; The copy of the R&R served on Dusek’s last known address was returned as undeliverable. See June 11, 2025 Docket Entry. The Clerk’s Office attempted to mail the R&R to Dusek at the Federal Correctional Institution - Sandstone. As the R&R notes, Dusek has now been moved to a Residential Reentry Center. ECF No. 11 at 3. Despite Dusek’s duty to do so, he has not provided his new address.
2. The Motion for Expedited Review and Consideration (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as moot; and 3. Dusek’s petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 30, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.