Dalluge v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MICHAEL D. DALLUGE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-cv-4215 (LMP/EMB)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Michael D. Dalluge filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his Eighth Amendment “rights to medical care” have been
violated by staff at Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. 	ECF No. 1 at 1.
Specifically, Dalluge alleges that medical staff at FMC Rochester have prescribed him
Vivitrol to treat his opioid addiction and have refused to prescribe Suboxone despite the
benefits Dalluge asserts. Id. at 1–2. Dalluge requests that the Court order his medical team
to administer Suboxone and to order his primary-care physician to be changed. Id. at 2.
On December 10, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending dismissal of Dalluge’s habeas
petition. ECF No. 6. The R&R concluded that Dalluge was challenging the conditions of
his confinement—not the validity of his conviction or the length of his detention—so
habeas relief was not the proper remedy. Id. at 3. Rather, Dalluge would have to bring his
constitutional claims in a non-habeas civil action. Id.
CASE 0:25-cv-04215-LMP-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Dalluge timely filed objections to the R&R. 	ECF No. 7. 	In those objections,
Dalluge does not address the R&R’s conclusion that his claims may not be brought
procedurally in a habeas petition. 	See id. 	Rather, Dalluge only continues to argue the
merits of his Eighth Amendment claim: that he should be prescribed Suboxone, rather than
Vivitrol. See id. at 1–2.
A district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which an objection is
made 	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). However, a
district court reviews for clear error any aspect of an R&R to which no specific objection
is made. 	Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). 	Here,
Dalluge’s objections to the R&R do not address the basis for the R&R’s recommendation
of dismissal—namely, that Dalluge’s claims are not cognizable in a habeas petition.
Accordingly, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. 	See id.; Rogers v. U.S. Dep’t of
Agric., No. 17-cv-2530 (WMW/FLN), 2018 WL 1226109, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 2018)
(reviewing R&R for clear error when objections to the R&R “d[id] not address the R&R’s
legal analysis”). Discerning no clear error, the Court adopts the R&R in full.
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in this matter, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. 	Dalluge’s Objections (ECF No. 7) are OVERRULED;
3. 	The Petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; and
CASE 0:25-cv-04215-LMP-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
4. 	This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 11, 2026 	s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-04215-LMP-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3