Dillard v. State of Minnesota et al
ORDER: The REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 3 is accepted; the Petition 1 is dismissed without prejudice; the IFP application 2 is denied; and no certificate of appealability is issued. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 11/13/2023. (BJP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Freddie L. Dillard,
No. 23-cv-2383 (KMM/DTS)
State of Minnesota, et al.,
Petitioner Freddie Dillard filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus relating
to his conviction in Minnesota state court. United States Magistrate Judge David T.
Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Auguust 14, 2023
recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
because Mr. Dillard has not received the required authorization from the Eighth Circuit to
bring a successive petition. The deadline for Mr. Dillard to file objections to the R&R
was August 28, 2023, and none have been submitted.
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections
are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the
Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949
(D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). Based on a careful review of the record, the Court finds
that Judge Schultz committed no error, clear or otherwise.
Accordingly, the Court enters the following ORDER.
1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. 3] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Petition [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of
3. The application to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is DENIED.
4. No certificate of appealability is issued.
Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly.
Date: November 13, 2023
s/ Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
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?