Erving v. Rardin
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-00220
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Roosevelt Erving v. Jared Rardin, Warden, Judge Tostrud denied Roosevelt Erving's petition asking a federal court to order his release from custody and dismissed the case.
Roosevelt Erving, a prisoner who sought federal court review of his confinement. His petition was denied and the case was dismissed, leaving him without relief from this proceeding.
What happened
In Roosevelt Erving v. Jared Rardin, Warden (File No. 26-cv-220), Roosevelt Erving filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a request asking a federal court to review whether his imprisonment is lawful and potentially order his release — against Jared Rardin, the warden overseeing his custody.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on January 26, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied. Neither Erving nor the warden objected to that recommendation within the allowed time. When no party objects, the district court reviews the recommendation only for clear error — a more limited review than it would conduct if objections had been filed.
Judge Tostrud found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Elkins's Report and Recommendation, accepted it in full, denied Erving's petition, and dismissed the case entirely.
The detailed version
This is a federal habeas corpus proceeding under which Petitioner Roosevelt Erving sought a writ of habeas corpus — a court order challenging the legality of his confinement — against Respondent Jared Rardin, identified as the warden responsible for his custody, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 26, 2026 (ECF No. 6), recommending denial of the petition. The opinion does not describe the substantive grounds of Erving's petition or the specific reasons Magistrate Judge Elkins recommended denial. Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections were filed, District Judge Eric C. Tostrud applied the 'clear error' standard of review — a deferential standard under which the court looks only for obvious mistakes, not conducts a full de novo (fresh) review. Citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), Judge Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the R&R in full, denied the habeas petition (ECF No. 1), and dismissed the action with judgment to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.