Huezo-Hernandez v. United States
Huezo-Hernandez v. United States
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Felix Alberto Huezo-Hernandez, Case No. 25-CV-02312 (JMB/DJF) Petitioner,
ORDER v. United States of America, Respondent.
Felix Alberto Huezo-Hernandez, Rochester, MN, self represented.
Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent United States of America.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Dulce J. Foster dated July 16, 2025. (Doc. No. 6.) The R&R recommends that Huezo-Hernandez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his petition. (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. 6) is ADOPTED.
2. The Petition is DENIED.
3. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 18, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Felix Alberto Huezo-Hernandez, Case No. 25-CV-02312 (JMB/DJF) Petitioner,
ORDER v. United States of America, Respondent.
Felix Alberto Huezo-Hernandez, Rochester, MN, self represented.
Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent United States of America.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Dulce J. Foster dated July 16, 2025. (Doc. No. 6.) The R&R recommends that Huezo-Hernandez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his petition. (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. 6) is ADOPTED.
2. The Petition is DENIED.
3. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 18, 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.