Cross v. Warden
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-02170
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In DeAngelo Cross v. Warden, FCI Duluth, Judge Blackwell accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied and dismissed without prejudice DeAngelo Cross's petition seeking release or relief from federal custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Federal prisoners at FCI Duluth or elsewhere who file habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging their custody, particularly those proceeding without a lawyer. Also relevant to anyone interested in how federal courts handle uncontested magistrate judge recommendations.
What happened
In DeAngelo Cross v. Warden, FCI Duluth (Case No. 25-2170), DeAngelo Cross, a prisoner at FCI Duluth acting without a lawyer, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody under a federal law (28 U.S.C. § 2241) that allows prisoners to challenge the legality of their detention or the conditions of their imprisonment.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendation on October 7, 2025, concluding that the petition should be denied. Cross did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews only for obvious legal errors.
Judge Blackwell found no obvious error in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, accepted it, and denied the petition. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Cross is not permanently barred from raising these issues again in a future filing if the legal requirements are met.
The detailed version
Case: DeAngelo Cross v. Warden, FCI Duluth, Civ. No. 25-2170 (JWB/JFD), United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Presiding District Judge: Jerry W. Blackwell. Magistrate Judge: John F. Docherty.
Petitioner DeAngelo Cross, proceeding pro se (without an attorney), filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1). A § 2241 petition is a legal mechanism by which a federal prisoner can challenge the execution of their sentence or the legality of their detention, as distinct from a § 2255 motion which challenges the underlying conviction or sentence itself. Respondent is the Warden of FCI Duluth, represented by Ana H. Voss, Esq., and Lucas B. Draisey, Esq., of the United States Attorney's Office.
Magistrate Judge Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on October 7, 2025 (Doc. No. 16), recommending that the petition be denied. The opinion does not describe the specific grounds of the petition or the magistrate judge's reasoning, as those details are contained in the R&R itself, which is referenced but not reproduced here.
Cross did not file objections to the R&R within the permitted time. 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 timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a more deferential standard than de novo (independent) review.
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the R&R and issued an Order on October 29, 2025: (1) accepting the R&R; (2) denying Cross's § 2241 petition; and (3) dismissing the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently bar Cross from refiling, though any future petition would need to independently satisfy applicable legal requirements.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.