Chapman v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03358
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Chapman v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Tostrud accepted a Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied Mindy L. Chapman's petition asking a federal court to order her release or relief from imprisonment, dismissing the case without prejudice (meaning she may refile).
Mindy L. Chapman, a person in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons who sought court review of that custody. The ruling denies her petition but allows her to refile.
What happened
In Chapman v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons (Case No. 25-cv-3358), Mindy L. Chapman filed a petition asking the federal court to review the lawfulness of her custody or treatment by the Federal Bureau of Prisons — a legal request known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a way for a person in government custody to challenge that custody in court.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on September 26, 2025, suggesting that the petition should be denied. Neither Chapman nor the Bureau of Prisons filed any objection to that recommendation within the allowed time. When no party objects, the assigned district judge reviews the recommendation only for clear (obvious) error rather than conducting a full independent review.
Judge Tostrud found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Micko's recommendation and adopted it in full. As a result, Chapman's petition was denied and the case was dismissed without prejudice — meaning the dismissal does not permanently bar Chapman from filing a new petition in the future if she has grounds to do so.
The detailed version
Case: Mindy L. Chapman v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 25-cv-3358 (ECT/DLM), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Presiding Judge: District Judge Eric C. Tostrud. Magistrate Judge: Douglas L. Micko.
Background: Petitioner Mindy L. Chapman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) against the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons. A habeas corpus petition is a legal mechanism by which a person in government custody asks a federal court to examine whether that custody is lawful and to order relief if it is not.
Report and Recommendation: On September 26, 2025, Magistrate Judge Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) recommending denial of the petition. The opinion does not describe the substantive grounds for that recommendation.
Review Standard: Because no party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, Judge Tostrud reviewed it under the clear error standard pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Clear error review is a deferential standard under which the court will only reject a recommendation if it is plainly wrong.
Ruling: Finding no clear error, Judge Tostrud (1) accepted the Report and Recommendation, (2) denied Chapman's habeas petition, and (3) dismissed the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the petitioner from filing a new petition in the future.
Note on Substantive Grounds: The order itself does not explain the underlying reasons why the petition was found to lack merit; those reasons, if any, would be contained in Magistrate Judge Micko's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5), which is not reproduced here.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.