Bewaji v. Falgreen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji,
Petitioner,
v.
Jed Falgreen,
Respondent.
Civ. No. 25-4342 (JWB/DTS)
ORDER ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji, pro se Petitioner.
Thomas R. Ragatz, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, counsel for Respondent.
On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji filed an Amended
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 8; see also
Doc. No. 9 at 1, n.1.) He alleges that the victim impact statement made by Respondent
Jed Falgreen in the underlying state criminal case was prejudicial and should have been
excluded. (Doc. No. 8 at 6.)
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 21, 2026. (Doc. No. 9.) The R&R recommends
dismissing the Amended Petition because Petitioner did not exhaust his state court
remedies on his sole claim, which the R&R construes as a due process claim. (Id. at 2–4.)
Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R on February 6, 2026. (Doc. No. 11.)
Objected-to portions of an R&R are reviewed de novo, and the recommendations
CASE 0:25-cv-04342-JWB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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). The portions of an R&R to which no specific objection is made are
reviewed for clear error. See Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d
1012, 1018 (D. Minn. 2015) (observing R&R objections that “are not specific but merely
repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de
novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error.”) A clear error is an obvious mistake
in applying the law or interpreting the facts. Warren v. Forney, Civ. No. 23-70
(JWB/LIB), 2024 WL 5135669, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2024). Because Petitioner is pro
se, his objections are entitled to liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551, U.S. 89, 94
(2007).
Petitioner does not raise specific objections to the R&R. Instead, he merely repeats
his underlying claims, attempts to introduce new allegations regarding his due process
claim, and raises a new constitutional claim related to his privacy rights. (See Doc.
No. 11 at 2.) Using an objection to an R&R to add factual allegations is procedurally
improper. See McCoy v. Marshall, Civ. No. 25-3686, 2026 WL 228747, at *1 (D. Minn.
Jan. 28, 2026). Regardless, the new details do not address R&R’s exhaustion analysis,
which is therefore reviewed for clear error.
Careful review of the record reveals no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis or conclusions. A writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 requires the petitioner to
have exhausted available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). And Petitioner
concedes that he did not raise his due process claim in state court. (Doc. No. 8 at 7.) The
findings are supported by both the evidence and law, and the R&R is accepted in its
CASE 0:25-cv-04342-JWB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 3

3
entirety.
ORDER
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and
proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji’s Objections to the January 21,
2026 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 11) are OVERRULED;
2. 	The January 21, 2026 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9) is
ACCEPTED;
3. 	Bewaji’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED;
4. 	Bewaji’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. Nos. 3, 10) are
DENIED as moot; and
5. 	No Certificate of Appealability is issued.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: March 18, 2026 	s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-04342-JWB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 3