From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kent v. Walton

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mar 16, 2006
Civil File No. 05-2876 (MJD/SRN) (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2006)

Opinion

Civil File No. 05-2876 (MJD/SRN).

March 16, 2006

James G. Kent, pro se.

Joseph Dixon, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Respondents.


ORDER


The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan R. Neslon dated February 7, 2006. Respondents filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and Petitioner Kent filed an opposition to Respondents' objections.

Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.1(c). Based on that review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Nelson's February 7, 2006 Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 7, 2006 [Docket No. 11], is hereby ADOPTED;

2. Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

3. The Petition is GRANTED insofar as Respondent is directed to reconsider the date when Petitioner should be assigned to community confinement in light of the criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and without regard to 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21;

4. The Petition is DENIED in all other respects; and

5. Petitioner's Motion to Consolidate [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED AS MOOT.


Summaries of

Kent v. Walton

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mar 16, 2006
Civil File No. 05-2876 (MJD/SRN) (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2006)
Case details for

Kent v. Walton

Case Details

Full title:JAMES G. KENT, Petitioner, v. J.S. WALTON, Associate Warden, Duluth…

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Mar 16, 2006

Citations

Civil File No. 05-2876 (MJD/SRN) (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2006)

Citing Cases

Weaver Hardware Co. v. Solomovitz

The original notes which the bank had discounted in good faith for full value and without notice of any…

Call v. Palmer

For it is settled that, where the promissor in a usurious contract makes it the consideration of a new…