Purham v. Eischen
Purham v. Eischen
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Howard Purham, Case No. 25-CV-01310 (JMB/JFD) Petitioner,
ORDER v. B. Eischen and FPC Duluth, Respondents.
Howard Purham, self-represented.
Ana H. Voss and Trevor Brown, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents B. Eischen and FPC Duluth.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate John F. Docherty dated July 1, 2025. (Doc. No. 6.) The R&R recommends that Purham’s underlying petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied as moot because Purham is believed to have been transferred to prerelease custody, which was the relief sought in the petition. (See id. at 1–2.) The R&R also alternatively recommends dismissal on grounds that Purham did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his petition. (Id. at 2.) 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).1 In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See The Court acknowledges that the Clerk of Court has been unable to provide Purham with a copy of the R&R at his last known address at FPC Duluth, as Purham is no longer in FPC Duluth’s custody. The Clerk of Court does not have a forwarding address for Purham.
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. 6) is ADOPTED.
2. The Petition is DENIED.
3. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 6, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Howard Purham, Case No. 25-CV-01310 (JMB/JFD) Petitioner,
ORDER v. B. Eischen and FPC Duluth, Respondents.
Howard Purham, self-represented.
Ana H. Voss and Trevor Brown, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents B. Eischen and FPC Duluth.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate John F. Docherty dated July 1, 2025. (Doc. No. 6.) The R&R recommends that Purham’s underlying petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied as moot because Purham is believed to have been transferred to prerelease custody, which was the relief sought in the petition. (See id. at 1–2.) The R&R also alternatively recommends dismissal on grounds that Purham did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his petition. (Id. at 2.) 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).1 In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See The Court acknowledges that the Clerk of Court has been unable to provide Purham with a copy of the R&R at his last known address at FPC Duluth, as Purham is no longer in FPC Duluth’s custody. The Clerk of Court does not have a forwarding address for Purham.
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. 6) is ADOPTED.
2. The Petition is DENIED.
3. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 6, 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.