From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bennett v. Blue Earth Cnty. Dist. Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mar 9, 2017
Case No. 16-cv-3054 (WMW/SER) (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 16-cv-3054 (WMW/SER)

03-09-2017

Jesse B. Bennett, Petitioner, v. Blue Earth County District Court, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the February 2, 2017 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. (Dkt. 28.) No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed in the time period permitted. In the absence of timely objections, this Court reviews a Report and Recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error.

Based on the Report and Recommendation and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The February 2, 2017 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 28), is ADOPTED;

2. Petitioner Jesse B. Bennett's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody, (Dkt. 1), is DENIED;

3. Bennett's motion to compel discovery, (Dkt. 15), is DENIED;

4. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

5. For the purpose of appeal, the Court does not grant a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: March 9, 2017

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright

Wilhelmina M. Wright

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Bennett v. Blue Earth Cnty. Dist. Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mar 9, 2017
Case No. 16-cv-3054 (WMW/SER) (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 2017)
Case details for

Bennett v. Blue Earth Cnty. Dist. Court

Case Details

Full title:Jesse B. Bennett, Petitioner, v. Blue Earth County District Court…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Date published: Mar 9, 2017

Citations

Case No. 16-cv-3054 (WMW/SER) (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 2017)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Roy

Second, to the extent the request could be interpreted as seeking to compel discovery, Rule 6(a) of the Rules…