govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-01421-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
Michael Benson, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v.  
 
Nancy Johnston, Executive Officer of 
MSOP, 
 
Respondent. 
 
                 Civ. No. 26-1421 (JWB/DJF) 
 
 
ORDER ACCEPTING 
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
  
 
Michael Benson, pro se Petitioner. 
 
Thomas R. Ragatz, Esq., Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, counsel for 
Respondent. 
 
 
 United States Magistrate Judge Dolce J. Foster issued a Report and 
Recommendation (“R&R”) on February 20, 2026. (Doc. No. 5.) Petitioner has filed an 
objection to the R&R in the time period permitted. (Doc. No. 6.)  
 The portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects are reviewed de novo and the 
recommendations made by the magistrate judge may be accepted, rejected, or modified, in 
whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Any aspect of an R&R to 
which no specific objection is made is reviewed for clear error. Grinder v. Gammon, 73 
F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 
1983 amendment (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself 
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 
CASE 0:26-cv-01421-JWB-DJF     Doc. 7     Filed 04/28/26     Page 1 of 2
 2 
recommendation.”). Because Plaintiff is pro se, his objections are entitled to liberal 
construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).  
 Petitioner’s objections to the February 20, 2026 R&R have been reviewed. 
Petitioner’s objections do not identify any error of law or fact that warrant rejecting the 
recommendations in the R&R. And, after carefully reviewing all other portions of the 
R&R not specifically objected to, it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Based 
on that review, and in consideration of the applicable law, the R&R is accepted in its 
entirety. 
 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 6) are 
OVERRULED; 
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5) is ACCEPTED; 
3. Petitioner Michael Benson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) 
is DENIED. 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
 
  Date: April 28, 2026 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell   
 JERRY W. BLACKWELL 
 United States District Judge  
CASE 0:26-cv-01421-JWB-DJF     Doc. 7     Filed 04/28/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight