Solis v. Beltz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Gilberto Dominguez Solis, Civ. No. 25-3123 (PAM/DJF) Petitioner, v. ORDER Tracey Beltz, Warden, Respondent. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster dated September 30, 2025. (Docket No. 9.) The R&R recommends denying Petitioner Gilberto Dominguez Solis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Docket No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R. According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Solis filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Response to Recommendations, which the Court construes as objections to the R&R. (Docket No. 11.) Solis reraises arguments he raised before the Magistrate Judge. Liberally construing Solis’s objections, he fails to provide any factual or legal basis on which to overturn the R&R’s sound reasoning. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Thus, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. The full background is set forth in the R&R and the Court need not revisit it here. As the R&R thoroughly analyzed, Solis fails to demonstrate that he exhausted his state- court remedies. The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. The Court denies a certificate of appealability because Solis has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), (c)(2). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Docket No. 9); 2. Petitioner Gilberto Dominguez Solis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; 3. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 4. No certificate of appealability shall issue. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: November 26, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge