Berrios Osorio v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03115
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Berrios Osorio v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Tostrud denied and dismissed without prejudice the petition filed by Olvyn Avilo Berrios Osorio seeking release or relief from federal custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Olvyn Avilo Berrios Osorio, a federal prisoner held at FCI Sandstone in Minnesota who sought court review of his confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The ruling denies his petition, though the dismissal is without prejudice.
What happened
In Berrios Osorio v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Olvyn Avilo Berrios Osorio, a person held at FCI Sandstone (a federal prison in Minnesota), filed a petition asking a federal court to review the legality of his imprisonment under a federal law that allows people in federal custody to challenge the conditions or execution of their confinement (28 U.S.C. § 2241).
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendation on August 28, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied. No party — including Berrios Osorio — filed any objection to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it only for obvious ('clear') errors.
Finding no clear error in Magistrate Judge Micko's analysis, Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation in full, denied the petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means Berrios Osorio is not permanently barred from raising these claims again, though the opinion does not explain under what circumstances he could do so.
The detailed version
Petitioner Olvyn Avilo Berrios Osorio filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District of Minnesota (File No. 25-cv-3115). Section 2241 is the federal statute that allows a person in federal custody to challenge the manner, execution, or conditions of their confinement — as distinct from a direct challenge to the underlying conviction or sentence. The petition named the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of FCI Sandstone as respondents.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 28, 2025 (ECF No. 6), recommending denial of the petition. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error — a deferential standard less rigorous than de novo review.
Neither Berrios Osorio nor the respondents filed objections. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed the R&R for clear error, found none, and on September 26, 2025, issued a brief order: (1) accepting the R&R, (2) denying the § 2241 petition, and (3) dismissing the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently bar re-filing, but the opinion contains no elaboration on the substantive reasons for denial — those reasons, if any, appear in the R&R itself (ECF No. 6), which is not reproduced here. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.