Armillas-Llaurado v. Warden
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-03771
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Armillas-Llaurado v. Warden, FCI Sandstone, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan denied Lorenzo Armillas-Llaurado's petition asking a federal court to order his release or relief from custody, adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation without objection and dismissing the case without prejudice.
Lorenzo Armillas-Llaurado, a federal prisoner at FCI Sandstone in Minnesota who was seeking review of his custody through a habeas petition. The ruling denies his petition and closes the case, though without prejudice.
What happened
In Armillas-Llaurado v. Warden, FCI Sandstone (Case No. 25-CV-03771), Lorenzo Armillas-Llaurado, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota, filed a petition asking the court to review the legality of his confinement — a legal tool sometimes called a habeas petition. A magistrate judge, Dulce J. Foster, reviewed the case and issued a written recommendation on November 20, 2025, advising that the petition be denied.
Neither Armillas-Llaurado nor the government (represented by the warden of FCI Sandstone) filed any objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation within the allowed time period. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation only to check for obvious ('clear') errors rather than conducting a full independent review.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error in the magistrate judge's recommendation and adopted it in full. The petition was denied and the case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Armillas-Llaurado is not automatically barred from raising these or related claims again in the future, though no opinion is offered here on whether any future filing would succeed.
The detailed version
Case: Lorenzo Armillas-Llaurado v. Warden, FCI Sandstone, No. 25-CV-03771 (JMB/DJF) Court: United States District Court, District of Minnesota Deciding Judge: Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan Date: February 17, 2026
Background and Procedural History Petitioner Lorenzo Armillas-Llaurado, proceeding without legal representation (self-represented or 'pro se'), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a person in custody can challenge the lawfulness of their detention — against the Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Sandstone, Minnesota. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster for an initial recommendation.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) On November 20, 2025, Magistrate Judge Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) advising that the habeas petition be denied. The opinion does not describe the specific grounds of the petition or the magistrate judge's reasoning in any detail beyond the recommendation to deny.
Absence of Objections Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the period prescribed by District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). When no timely objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court's standard of review is limited to checking for 'clear error,' as established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)).
Court's Ruling Judge Bryan found no clear error in the R&R. The court: (1) adopted the R&R in full; (2) denied the habeas petition; and (3) dismissed the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but does not permanently bar the petitioner from potentially raising claims again in a future filing, subject to applicable procedural rules.
Representation Armillas-Llaurado represented himself. The Respondent Warden was represented by Lucas B. Draisey of the United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Note on Opinion Content The opinion is brief and procedural; it does not elaborate on the underlying facts of the habeas petition, the original conviction or detention, or the specific legal arguments raised. The substance of the magistrate judge's analysis is contained in the R&R (Doc. No. 16), which is not reproduced in this opinion.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.