Deloye v. Bolin
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-03443
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Deloye v. Bolin, Judge Menendez granted petitioner Thomas J. Deloye's own request to dismiss his case, closing the matter without prejudice (meaning he may be able to refile) and issuing no certificate of appealability.
Thomas J. Deloye, the petitioner who sought and obtained dismissal of his own case without prejudice. Anyone in a similar position seeking to voluntarily end a federal petition while preserving future filing options may find this type of procedural ruling relevant.
What happened
In Deloye v. Bolin (Case No. 25-cv-3443), Thomas J. Deloye filed a petition in federal court in Minnesota against William Bolin. At some point during the case, Deloye himself asked the court to dismiss the matter without prejudice — meaning he wanted to end the case while keeping open the possibility of refiling in the future.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard reviewed the request and issued a Report and Recommendation on November 4, 2025, concluding that Deloye's motion to dismiss without prejudice should be granted. No one filed any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time period.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez reviewed Judge Bullard's Report and Recommendation for clear error (the standard that applies when no objections are filed), found no error, and accepted it in full. The court granted Deloye's motion, dismissed the case without prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability — a document that would be required for Deloye to appeal certain types of rulings to a higher court.
The detailed version
This case, Deloye v. Bolin, No. 25-cv-3443 (KMM/EMB), was before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Petitioner Thomas J. Deloye filed a petition against Respondent William Bolin. The nature of the underlying petition is not described in this order, but the court's denial of a certificate of appealability (a procedural requirement in cases involving challenges to custody or conviction) suggests this may have been a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order challenging the legality of a person's detention), though the opinion does not explicitly confirm this.
Deloye filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Docket Entry 12), asking the court to end his own case while preserving his ability to refile in the future. United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry 14) on November 4, 2025, recommending that the motion be granted and the case be dismissed.
Because no objections were filed within the objection period, District Judge Katherine M. Menendez reviewed the Report and Recommendation under the 'clear error' standard — a more deferential standard of review that applies when neither party contests the magistrate judge's findings, as opposed to the de novo (fresh, independent) review required when objections are filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021). Finding no clear error, Judge Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation in full.
The court ordered: (1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted; (2) Deloye's Motion to Dismiss is granted; (3) the case is dismissed without prejudice; and (4) no certificate of appealability is issued. A certificate of appealability is a prerequisite for appealing certain rulings in habeas-type cases to a higher court; its denial here means that any appeal would require obtaining such a certificate from another court. The dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but Deloye is not necessarily barred from bringing a new action in the future.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.