Faul v. Lejeune

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated March 25, 2024. (Doc. 21 in Civil No. 22-02993; Doc. 25 in Civi l No. 23-01337); 2. Petitioner's Petitions for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 in Civil No. 22-02993; Doc. 1 in Civil No. 23-01337) are DENIED; and 3. Petitioner's Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 17 in Civil No. 22-02993; Doc. 19 in Civil No. 23-01337) are DENIED as moot. LET JUDGEMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 6/4/2024.Associated Cases: 0:22-cv-02993-MJD-JFD, 0:23-cv-01337-MJD-JFD(GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Scott William Faul,
Petitioner,
v.
Michel Lejeune, Warden,
Respondent,

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Civil No. 22-02993 (MJD/JFD)

and
Scott William Faul,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil No. 23-01337 (MJD/JFD)

Mark W. King, Warden,
Respondent.

Scott William Faul, Petitioner, pro se.
Adam J. Hoskins, DOJ-Assistant United States Attorney, Ana H. Voss, Assistant
United States Attorney, for Respondent.

The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the March 25, 2024
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge John F.
Docherty. (Doc. 21 in Civil No. 22-02993; Doc. 25 in Civil No. 23-01337.)
Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 26 in Civil No. 22-02993; Doc. 28 in
Civil No. 23-01337.) Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo

review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon
that review, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation.
Petitioner’s objections fall largely into three categories: (1) baseless
statements that insult the judiciary and the Magistrate Judge, in particular; (2)
objections to the R&R’s findings, analyses, and conclusions that the Court has
considered and finds to be without merit; and (3) arguments related to
Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. The Court denies Petitioner’s
request for an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively demonstrates
that he is not entitled to relief. Udoh v. Knutson, No. CV 19-1311 (MJD/HB), 2019
WL 4073392, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2019) (citing White v. Dingle, 757 F.3d 750,
757 (8th Cir. 2014); Crawford v. Norris, 363 F. App’x 428, 430 (8th Cir. 2010);
Kendrick v. Carlson, 995 F.2d 1440, 1446 (8th Cir. 1993)).
Accordingly, based upon all files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty dated March 25, 2024. [Doc. 21 in
Civil No. 22-02993; Doc. 25 in Civil No. 23-01337];

2

2. Petitioner’s Petitions for Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1 in Civil No. 22-02993;
Doc. 1 in Civil No. 23-01337] are DENIED; and
3. Petitioner’s Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. 17 in
Civil No. 22-02993; Doc. 19 in Civil No. 23-01337] are DENIED as
moot.
LET JUDGEMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: June 4, 2024

s/Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

3