Chavez-Nelson v. Dayton et al
Filing
36
ORDER denying 34 Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Judgment. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 2/27/2019. (CLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SHAVELLE OSCAR CHAVEZ‐NELSON,
Case No. 17‐CV‐4098 (PJS/SER)
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
GOVERNOR TIM WALZ and
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS
PAUL SCHNELL,
Respondents.
On January 25, 2019 the Court issued an order denying petitioner Shavelle Oscar
Chavez‐Nelson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF
No. 32. This matter is before the Court on Chavez‐Nelson’s motion to alter or amend
the Court’s prior order. See ECF No. 34. Chavez‐Nelson argues that the Court “did not
address [various] objections” he made to Magistrate Judge Steven Rau’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) and therefore did not conduct a de novo review. Id. at 2.
Chavez‐Nelson is mistaken. As the Court clearly stated in its prior order, it did
conduct a de novo review. See ECF No. 32 at 2 (“The Court has conducted a de novo
review.”). Conducting a de novo review does not mean that the Court must comment
on every objection made to an R&R. When the Court concludes—after a de novo
review—that the R&R adequately addresses a litigant’s argument, the Court need not
repeat what the magistrate judge said about that argument. Instead, the Court can
simply adopt the R&R. See United States v. Ginn, 465 Fed. App’x 585, 587‐88 (8th Cir.
2012); see also Shelton v. Chater, 87 F.3d 992, 996 (8th Cir. 1996).
That is what occurred in this case. Following a de novo review, the Court found
that it agreed with Judge Rau, so the Court adopted his R&R. As to some issues, the
Court wanted to add additional explanation, and the Court provided that explanation
in an 18‐page order. As to other issues, the Court had nothing to add to what Judge
Rau said in the R&R. Chavez‐Nelson received the de novo review to which he was
entitled.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Petitioner Shavelle Oscar Chavez‐Nelson’s motion to alter or amend
judgment [ECF No. 34] is DENIED.
Dated: February 27, 2019
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?