Turner v. State of Minnesota and County of Clay
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-03996
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Turner v. State of Minnesota and County of Clay, Judge Provinzino adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed Marvin James Turner's petition for a court order challenging his confinement because he failed to move his case forward, though the dismissal allows him to refile.
Marvin James Turner, the petitioner, whose habeas corpus petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. People in custody who file habeas petitions and do not comply with court requirements or advance their cases may face similar dismissals.
What happened
In Turner v. State of Minnesota and County of Clay (Case No. 25-cv-3996), Marvin James Turner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to examine whether a person's imprisonment or detention is lawful — against the State of Minnesota and the County of Clay in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on November 17, 2025, recommending that the petition be dismissed because Turner failed to prosecute his case — meaning he did not take the necessary steps to move it forward. No party, including Turner, filed any objection to that recommendation within the allowed time period.
Because no objections were filed, Judge Provinzino reviewed the recommendation only for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full on December 3, 2025. The petition was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Turner is not permanently barred from refiling a similar claim in the future.
The detailed version
Case: Marvin James Turner v. State of Minnesota and County of Clay, No. 25-cv-3996 (LMP/SGE), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Presiding District Judge: Laura M. Provinzino. Referring Magistrate Judge: Shannon G. Elkins.
Background: Plaintiff Marvin James Turner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a person in custody challenges the lawfulness of that custody — against the State of Minnesota and the County of Clay.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R): On November 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Elkins issued an R&R recommending dismissal of Turner's petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes involuntary dismissal of an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute — i.e., fails to take the steps required to advance the litigation.
Objection Period: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), parties have 14 days to file objections to an R&R. No party filed objections.
Standard of Review: Because no objections were filed, Judge Provinzino applied a clear error standard of review, citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Under this deferential standard, the district court upholds the magistrate judge's recommendation unless it contains a plain or obvious mistake.
Holding: Finding no clear error, Judge Provinzino adopted the R&R in full on December 3, 2025. The petition (ECF No. 1) was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice means Turner is not permanently barred from bringing a similar claim again, though any refiling would be subject to applicable procedural and substantive requirements.
Note: The opinion does not contain any factual detail about the underlying basis for Turner's habeas petition, the nature of his custody, or the specific conduct that constituted failure to prosecute (e.g., failure to pay a filing fee, failure to respond to court orders). Those details are not available from this order alone.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.