Saleem v. Stenseth
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:25-cv-00319
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Saleem v. Stenseth, Judge Magnuson denied Zaki Malik Saleem's petition for release from custody and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding no error in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
Individuals who are in custody and have filed or are considering filing a petition challenging the lawfulness of their confinement in federal court in the District of Minnesota, particularly those who may be considering whether to file objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
What happened
In Saleem v. Stenseth (Civ. No. 25-319), Zaki Malik Saleem filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release from custody, a legal procedure that allows prisoners to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement. The case was initially reviewed by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster, who issued a Report and Recommendation on May 14, 2026, concluding that the petition should be denied and that Saleem should not be granted permission to appeal. Saleem did not file any objections to that recommendation within the required time period.
Because no objections were filed, the district court was only required to check the Magistrate Judge's work for obvious mistakes — a lower level of review than would apply if objections had been raised. The court reviewed the Report and Recommendation under that standard and found no error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is a document a prisoner needs in order to appeal such a ruling to a higher court.
The detailed version
- Saleem v. Stenseth · No. 0:25-cv-00319
- Paul Magnuson
- June 11, 2026
Background
Petitioner Zaki Malik Saleem filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a person in custody challenges the lawfulness of their confinement — against Lisa Stenseth, identified in the caption as Warden. The opinion does not describe the underlying conviction, the nature of the custody, or the specific grounds raised in the petition.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated May 14, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied and that no certificate of appealability (COA) — a prerequisite for appealing a habeas denial to a higher court — be issued. Saleem did not file objections to the R&R within the time allowed under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b), the district court must conduct a de novo (fresh, independent) review of any portion of an R&R to which specific objections have been filed. Where, as here, no objections are filed, the court reviews the R&R only for clear error. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) in support of this standard.
Ruling
Judge Magnuson found no error — clear or otherwise — in Magistrate Judge Foster's reasoning. The court therefore:
- Adopted the R&R (Docket No. 21);
- Denied the petition (Docket No. 1);
- Dismissed the action without prejudice; and
- Declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Notes
The opinion does not describe the underlying grounds for the habeas petition, the nature of Saleem's custody, or the specific legal reasoning in the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Because no COA was issued, Saleem would need to seek such a certificate from the court of appeals to pursue a further appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.