Stevenson v. Eischen
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01308
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Stevenson v. B. Eischen, Warden, Judge Tostrud accepted a Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed Michael Stevenson's petition asking to be released from custody as moot, closing the case without prejudice to refiling.
Michael Stevenson, a petitioner in federal custody who challenged his custody through a habeas petition; the petition was dismissed as moot, leaving the case closed without a ruling on the merits.
What happened
In Stevenson v. B. Eischen, Warden, federal prisoner Michael Stevenson filed a petition asking a court to order his release or otherwise challenge his custody — a legal request known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation on February 25, 2026, concluding the petition should be denied as moot, meaning the issue Stevenson raised no longer required a court decision. Neither Stevenson nor the warden objected to that recommendation within the allowed time.
Because no party objected, Judge Tostrud reviewed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation only for clear error — a less intensive standard of review than would apply if someone had objected. The court found no clear error in the recommendation.
Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. The petition was denied as moot and the entire case was dismissed without prejudice, which means Stevenson is not permanently barred from raising a related claim in the future if circumstances permit.
The detailed version
Case: Michael Stevenson v. B. Eischen, Warden, File No. 25-cv-1308 (ECT/EMB), United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Presiding District Judge: Eric C. Tostrud. Magistrate Judge: Elsa M. Bullard.
Petitioner Michael Stevenson filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (a legal mechanism allowing a person in custody to ask a federal court to review the lawfulness of that custody), naming B. Eischen, Warden, as respondent. The petition was filed at ECF No. 1.
Magistrate Judge Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on February 25, 2026 (ECF No. 20), recommending the petition be denied as moot — meaning whatever live controversy or relief Stevenson sought no longer existed and did not require adjudication on the merits. The opinion does not explain the specific facts or legal basis underlying the mootness finding; those details are in the R&R itself, which is not reproduced here.
No party filed objections to the R&R. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the Eighth Circuit's standard articulated in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), a district court reviews an unobjected-to R&R only for clear error. Judge Tostrud found no clear error.
Disposition: (1) The R&R was accepted in full; (2) Stevenson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was DENIED AS MOOT; and (3) the action was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE — meaning the dismissal does not permanently bar Stevenson from pursuing any future related claims if circumstances allow. Judgment was ordered entered accordingly. Order dated March 24, 2026.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.