McKay v. Clay County Correction Facility
McKay v. Clay County Correction Facility
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cory Allen McKay, Case No. 25-CV-01692 (JMB/DJF) Petitioner,
ORDER v. Clay County Correction Facility, Respondent.
Cory Allen McKay, self represented.
Thomas R. Ragatz, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, St. Paul, MN, for Respondent Clay County Correction Facility.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Dulce J. Foster, dated May 12, 2025. (Doc. No. 3.) The R&R recommends that Petitioner Cory Allen McKay’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. (See id.) Neither party has objected 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. 3) is ADOPTED.
2. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 2, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cory Allen McKay, Case No. 25-CV-01692 (JMB/DJF) Petitioner,
ORDER v. Clay County Correction Facility, Respondent.
Cory Allen McKay, self represented.
Thomas R. Ragatz, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, St. Paul, MN, for Respondent Clay County Correction Facility.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Dulce J. Foster, dated May 12, 2025. (Doc. No. 3.) The R&R recommends that Petitioner Cory Allen McKay’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. (See id.) Neither party has objected 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. 3) is ADOPTED.
2. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 2, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.