Ramos-Jose v. United States
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ramon Arturo Ramos-Jose, Civ. No. 25-2466 (PAM/SGE) Petitioner, v. ORDER United States of America, Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins dated August 19, 2025. (Docket No. 8.)
The R&R recommends that Petitioner Ramon Arturo Ramos-Jose’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons. No party objected 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. 8) is ADOPTED; 2. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (Docket No. 5) be DENIED as moot; and 3. The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 18, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ramon Arturo Ramos-Jose, Civ. No. 25-2466 (PAM/SGE) Petitioner, v. ORDER United States of America, Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins dated August 19, 2025. (Docket No. 8.)
The R&R recommends that Petitioner Ramon Arturo Ramos-Jose’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons. No party objected 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. 8) is ADOPTED; 2. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (Docket No. 5) be DENIED as moot; and 3. The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 18, 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.