Rosales v. Segal

In this case, Petitioner Teri Lynn Rosales, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking the court to review the legality or conditions of her confinement — against Warden Michael Segal. The basis of her petition was a dispute over how her sentence was being calculated. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on June 5, 2025, finding that Respondent had correctly calculated Rosales's sentence and recommending dismissal of the petition.

No objections to the R&R were filed within the time permitted by the court's rules. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b), the district court reviews any portion of an R&R to which specific objections are made on a de novo basis (meaning the judge looks at it fresh, without deference to the magistrate judge). In the absence of objections, however, the court applies a more deferential 'clear error' standard of review, citing Nur v. Olmsted County and Grinder v. Gammon.

Applying the clear error standard, United States District Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no error in the R&R's conclusions. Accordingly, the court: (1) accepted the R&R; (2) denied the habeas petition (ECF 1) filed by Teri Lynn Rosales; and (3) dismissed the matter in its entirety. Judgment is to be entered accordingly. The order does not address whether a certificate of appealability — a required prerequisite for appealing the denial of a federal habeas petition — was granted or denied.