Coker v. Jarden
Christopher Paul Coker v. Jarden, Warden, Rochester FMC; and the Attorney General of the United States
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:26-cv-02506
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Coker v. Jarden, Judge Blackwell denied Christopher Paul Coker's petition challenging his federal custody, accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation without objection.
Federal prisoners who file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detention, particularly those who fail to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation — which limits district court review to clear error and reduces the likelihood of a different outcome.
What happened
In Coker v. Jarden, Warden, Rochester FMC, federal prisoner Christopher Paul Coker filed a petition asking a court to review the legality of his detention — a type of legal challenge known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The case was first reviewed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard, who issued a Report and Recommendation on May 18, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied. Coker did not file any objections to that recommendation within the time allowed.
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation only for clear error — a more limited form of review than it would apply if objections had been raised. The court found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
On June 11, 2026, Judge Jerry W. Blackwell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota accepted the Report and Recommendation and denied Coker's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Coker v. Jarden · No. 0:26-cv-02506
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- June 11, 2026
Background
Petitioner Christopher Paul Coker filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a person in custody challenges the legality of their detention — against Jarden, Warden of Rochester FMC (Federal Medical Center), and the Attorney General of the United States.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 18, 2026, recommending denial of the petition. The opinion does not describe the substantive grounds for that recommendation.
Coker did not file any objections to the R&R within the time permitted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a deferential standard under which the court will adopt the recommendation unless it identifies an obvious mistake.
Ruling
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it in full. As a result, Coker's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Limitations of This Summary
The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of Coker's detention, the nature of his legal claims, or the specific reasoning in the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Only the procedural posture and final disposition are set out in the district court's order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.