Becerra v. United States of America et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Petitioner Erik Becerra's objections 6 are OVERRULED. 2. The September 16, 2022 Report and Recommendation 5 is ADOPTED. 3. Petitioner Erik Becerra's petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED. 4. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 11/21/2022. (RJE)

CASE 0:22-cv-02065-WMW-LIB Doc. 11 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Erik Becerra,

Case No. 22-cv-2065 (WMW/LIB)
Petitioner,
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
United States of America; FMC Rochester
Prison Officials, Staff; Johnson; Rovelstad;
Hart and Tweeten,
Respondents.

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s
September 16, 2022 Report and Recommendation (R&R).

(Dkt. 5.)

The R&R

recommends denying Petitioner Erik Becerra’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and
dismissing this matter without prejudice. Becerra filed timely objections to the R&R, and
Respondents filed a response opposing Becerra’s objections.
A district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which timely
objections are filed and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3). However, an objection to an R&R must specify the nature of
the objections and provide a basis for those objections. Montgomery v. Compass Airlines,
LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015). In the absence of specific objections, de
novo review is not required, and a district court reviews the R&R for clear error. See id.
(observing that objections to an R&R that “are not specific but merely repeat arguments

CASE 0:22-cv-02065-WMW-LIB Doc. 11 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 3

presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but
rather are reviewed for clear error”). Because Becerra is proceeding pro se, the Court
construes his objections liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
In his objections, Becerra makes general arguments that are largely duplicative of
those in his initial habeas petition challenging his conviction, his subsequent civil detention
and the alleged practice of forceable medication at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester,
Minnesota. Although Becerra asserts that he is challenging the findings and conclusions
in the R&R, he presents no arguments as to why any of the findings or conclusions in the
R&R are incorrect.

Even construed liberally, Becerra’s objections lack sufficient

specificity and, therefore, this Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Montgomery, 98
F. Supp. 3d at 1017.

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court overrules Becerra’s objections, adopts the R&R and dismisses this
action without prejudice.
ORDER
Based on the R&R and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
1.

Petitioner Erik Becerra’s objections, (Dkt. 6), are OVERRULED.

2.

The September 16, 2022 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 5), is

ADOPTED.

2

CASE 0:22-cv-02065-WMW-LIB Doc. 11 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 3

3.

Petitioner Erik Becerra’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Dkt. 1), is

DENIED.
4.

This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 21, 2022

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

3