Garibay v. Eischen
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02236
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Garibay v. Eischen, Judge Tostrud denied without prejudice and dismissed the petition filed by Victor Leonardo Garibay asking the federal court to order his release or relief from custody, after no party objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation to reject it.
Federal prisoners, particularly those held at FPC Duluth, who file habeas corpus petitions challenging their confinement in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Garibay v. Eischen, federal prisoner Victor Leonardo Garibay filed a petition asking the court to review the legality of his custody — a request known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — against respondents B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The case was first reviewed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, who issued a Report and Recommendation on September 3, 2025, concluding that the petition should be rejected.
Because no party objected to Magistrate Judge Wright's recommendation within the time allowed, the presiding judge was only required to check for clear, obvious errors rather than conduct a full independent review. The court found no such clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis.
Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation in full and denied Garibay's petition without prejudice — meaning Garibay is not permanently barred from filing again if he can correct whatever deficiency led to this dismissal — and ordered the case closed.
The detailed version
This is a short procedural order from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Petitioner Victor Leonardo Garibay, a federal prisoner held at FPC Duluth, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal request challenging the lawfulness of his confinement) against respondents B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). The case is captioned File No. 25-cv-2236.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on September 3, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied. The R&R is ECF No. 11. No party — neither Garibay nor any respondent — filed objections to the R&R within the applicable deadline.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews only for 'clear error.' District Judge Eric C. Tostrud conducted that review, found no clear error, and on October 2, 2025, issued an order:
- Accepting the R&R (ECF No. 11);
- Denying Garibay's habeas petition (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE — meaning the denial does not permanently bar Garibay from refiling, though the underlying R&R is not reproduced here so the specific grounds for denial are not stated in this order;
- Dismissing the action and directing that judgment be entered.
The opinion does not describe the substantive grounds for the denial, as those would be set out in Magistrate Judge Wright's September 3, 2025 R&R, which is not reproduced in the provided text.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.